Evaluation of XXXX Using High-Resolution Sonography: Comparison With Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

@entity5 @entity1 @entity133 @entity2996
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of sonography in assessing @entity5 compared with @entity2996 ( @entity2996 ). METHODS: A randomized prospective study was performed on 40 cases of @entity5 . Magnetic resonance imaging and sonography of the tongue were performed, @entity5 spreading to particular sites was recorded in all cases. Sonographic and @entity2996 findings were correlated with histopathologic findings in 18 operable cases. In 22 inoperable cases, sonography was compared only with @entity2996 . RESULTS: In operable @entity1 , sonography achieved sensitivity of 61.1%, whereas @entity2996 achieved sensitivity of 94.4%. The difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The results for detection of individual site involvement on sonography and @entity2996 were as follows: intrinsic muscles only, 0 and 6, respectively; tongue base, 5 and 5; genioglossus muscle, 34 and 34; mylohyoid muscle, 9 and 8; sublingual space, 12 and 14; sublingual neurovascular bundle, 12 and 12; submandibular gland, 3 and 3; spread across the lingual septum, 17 and 17; and @entity133 , 0 and 1. There was no significant difference (P > .05) between sonography and @entity2996 in detecting involvement of the above-mentioned sites except for cases with only intrinsic muscles and @entity133 . @entity5 involving intrinsic tongue muscles only were not visualized on sonography. They all underwent surgery, resulting in reduced sensitivity of sonography in operable cases. CONCLUSIONS: Even though small @entity5 were difficult to visualize, sonography can play an important role in assessment of @entity5 extension in large growths, especially when @entity2996 is unavailable, contraindicated, or unaffordable, and for posttreatment follow-up.
