A prospective, blinded comparison of clinical examination and computed tomography in deep neck infections

Abstract

Objectives/hypothesis: To determine whether there is a scientific basis for the routine use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in the evaluation of suspected deep neck infection (DNI).

Study design: We conducted a prospective, blinded comparison of clinical examination and CECT in DNI.

Methods: Thirty-five consecutive patients with suspected DNI were prospectively assessed by clinical examination and CECT for the presence and extent of surgically drainable purulent collections. Before CECT a surgeon recorded clinical data and predicted the extent of infection. A head and neck neuroradiologist, blinded to the clinical evaluation, predicted the extent of infection based on CECT. Final outcome (the presence of a purulent collection) was determined at surgery or in long-term follow-up. The clinical and CECT findings were compared with the final outcome to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each modality.

Results: Twenty patients had purulent drainable collections. The accuracy of clinical examination alone in identifying a drainable collection was 63%, the sensitivity was 55%, and the specificity was 73%. The accuracy of CECT alone was 77%, the sensitivity was 95%, and the specificity 53%. When CECT and clinical examination were combined, the accuracy in identifying a drainable collection was 89%, the sensitivity was 95%, and the specificity 80%. If fluid collections with volumes of 2 mL or greater on CECT were considered, the accuracy of CECT would have been 85%, the sensitivity 89%, and the specificity 80%.

Conclusion: CECT and clinical examination are both critical components in the evaluation of suspected DNI.