Journal of Otology & RhinologyISSN: 2324-8785

Reach Us +1 850 754 6199
All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Research Article, J Otol Rhinol Vol: 6 Issue: 3

Prevalence of Anatomical Variants on Computed Tomography of Nose and Paranasal Sinuses

Bhatia JSS*, Behera Sk, Dalmia D and Kaur A

Department Of Otorhinolaryngology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital, Mumbai, India

*Corresponding Author : Dr. Jas Simran Singh Bhatia
Resident, department of otorhinolaryngology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital Byculla, Mumbai
Tel: 9654320368
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: March 24, 2017 Accepted: May 03, 2017 Published: May 10, 2017

Citation: Bhatia JSS, Behera Sk, Dalmia D, Kaur A (2017) Prevalence of Anatomical Variants on Computed Tomography of Nose and Paranasal Sinuses. J Otol Rhinol 6:3. doi: 10.4172/2324-8785.1000317

Abstract

Objective: Aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of anatomical variations of nose and paranasal sinuses based on the findings seen on computed tomography.

Methodology: CT SCAN of the patients with sinonasal symptoms was performed for evaluation of the anatomical variants of nose and paranasal sinuses. The sections were then analysed for anatomical variations. The data collected was subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: The most commonly encountered anatomical variation was DNS, present in 86.25% (69) of patients. Pneumatised septum was present in 25% (20) of patients. Concha bullosa was present in 28.75% (23) while Concha lamella was seen in 17.5% (14) of patients. Paradoxical middle turbinate was present in 13.75% (11) while pneumatization of uncinate process in 10% (8), pneumatized superior turbinate in 5% (4), Haller cells in 8.75% (7), prominent Agger nasi cells in 15% (12), pneumatized crista gali in 8.75% (7), Onodi cells in 20% (16), pneumatization of anterior clinoid process in 17.5% (14) while pneumatization of greater wing of sphenoid/ pterygoid process was present in 11.25% (9) of patients.

Conclusion: It is very important to recognize the clinical and surgical significance of these variations. Thus, prior to FESS, imaging with CT scan is mandatory to evaluate the anatomy of PNS and its variations.

Keywords: Anatomical variations; Paranasal sinus; Computed tomography; Prevalence; Nose; FESS

Track Your Manuscript

Share This Page

Media Partners

Associations