{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.047149894440534836, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02674173117522871, 'mean_word_length': 4.4903474903474905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[3D-ultrasound: a valuable adjunct for therapy planning and follow-up of head and neck tumours].

AIM
The three-dimensional visualization of orofacial tumours and adjacent organs at risk of infiltration is an important requirement for staging, therapy planning and follow-up. Artifacts from the mandible or metal implants often reduce the diagnostic power of computed tomography (CT). The value of 3D-ultrasound (3D-US) in respect to the standard methods CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was therefore analyzed.


METHOD
Between 9/97 and 10/99 the visualization of orofacial tumours in 243 patients by 3D-US was examined, classified on a five-point scale and compared to the corresponding CT and MRI scans.


RESULTS
Complete visualization of the tumours was possible in 85.6 % by 3D-US, whereas the rates of MRI and CT were lower with 77.4 % and 61.3 % respectively, mainly because of artifacts. The best combinations of methods, 3D-US + CT (96.7 %) and 3D-US + MRI (95.1 %) gave almost equivalent results, whereas CT + MRI (83.5 %) was inferior. In 2.5 % of the cases none of the methods produced adequate results.


CONCLUSION
By free selection of sectional planes and direct correlation to the clinical findings 3D-ultrasound can improve staging, therapy planning and follow-up of orofacial tumours, especially in the case of small tumour size, dental crowns/inlays, metal implants or contraindications to MRI.