No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Assessment of tympanic membrane perforation size using ImageJ software by ENT clinicians of different grades
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2023
Abstract
Objective
To compare visual estimation versus ImageJ calculation of tympanic membrane perforation size in the paediatric population between clinicians of different experience.
Methods
Five images of tympanic membrane perforations in children, captured using an otoendoscope, were selected. The gold standard was the ImageJ results by one consultant otologist. Consultants, registrars and Senior House Officers or equivalent were asked to visually estimate and calculate the perforation size using ImageJ software.
Results
The mean difference in variation from gold standard between visual estimation and ImageJ calculation was 12.16 per cent, 95 per cent CI (10.55, 13.78) p < 0.05, with ImageJ providing a more accurate estimation of perforation. Registrars were significantly more accurate at visual estimation than senior house officers. There was no statistically significant difference in ImageJ results between the different grades.
Conclusion
Using ImageJ software is more accurate at estimating tympanic membrane perforation size than visual assessment for all ENT clinicians regardless of experience.
- Type
- Main Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Footnotes
Sunil D Sharma takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper
Presented at British Association of Paediatric Otolaryngology Annual Meeting, 15–16 September 2022, Bristol, England
References
Lee, P, Kelly, G, Mills, RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:331–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardman, J, Muzaffar, J, Nankivell, P, Coulson, C. Tympanoplasty for chronic tympanic membrane perforation in children: systematic review and meta-analysis. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:796–804CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampal, S, Padgham, N, Bunt, S, Wright, A. Errors in the assessment of tympanic membrane perforations. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1993;18:58–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, CY, Chen, YS, Hwang, JH, Liu, TC. A computer program to calculate the size of tympanic membrane perforations. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29:340–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibekwe, TS, Adeosun, AA, Nwaorgu, OG. Quantitative analysis of tympanic membrane perforation: a simple and reliable method. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:e2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasband, WS. ImageJ, US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 1997–2018. In: https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/Google Scholar
Ibekwe, TS, Nwaorgu, OGB, Adeosun, AA, Kokong, DD, Lawal, HO, Okundia, PO et al. Assessments of the size of tympanic membrane perforations: a comparison of clinical estimations with video-otoscopic calculations. Ear Nose Throat J 2008;87:567–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jellinge, ME, Kristensen, S, Larsen, K. Spontaneous closure of traumatic tympanic membrane perforations: observational study. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:950–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, K, Schwam, ZG, Arrighi-Allisan, AE, Fan, CJ, Perez, ER, Cosetti, MK et al. Sharing in-office otoendoscopy recordings may improve patient satisfaction: a prospective cohort study. Patient Educ Couns 2022;105:3160–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rimon, O, Avraham, Y, Sharabi-Nov, A, Luder, A, Krupik, D, Gilbey, P. Video-otoscopy in children and patient-centered care: a randomized, controlled study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:2286–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed