Magnetic Resonance vs Magnetization Transfer Imaging

1. MAGNETIC RESONANCE
VS MAGNETIZATION
TRANSFER IMAGING
By Gul Moonis

2. MAGNETIC RESONANCE VS
MAGNETIZATION TRANSFER
IMAGING
Indications of Auto-Atticotomy in Temporal Bone Imaging
Possessing more than 15 years of experience, Gul Moonis, MD, is a
radiologist with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Her
areas of specialization include brain cancer and multiple sclerosis, as well
as diagnostic radiology. In 2013, Dr. Gul Moonis participated in a study
exploring the temporal bone imaging results in instances of auto-
atticotomy.

3. MAGNETIC RESONANCE VS
MAGNETIZATION TRANSFER
IMAGING
In a process sometimes referred to as “nature’s atticotomy,” an attic
cholesteatoma may drain on its own without the need for an incision into
the tympanic attic. As the cholesteatoma drains into the auditory canal, the
attic is left with an air-filled cavity resembling the initial shape of the
cholesteatoma.

4. MAGNETIC RESONANCE VS
MAGNETIZATION TRANSFER
IMAGING
In order to examine the appearance of auto-atticotomy cavities on CT scans,
Dr. Moonis and her colleagues studied the temporal bone imaging results of
21 patients over the course of five years. Each patient’s MDCT scans
indicated scutum erosion, as well as the loss of the lower attic wall. In
examining these imaging results, the physicians took three separate
measurements to assess the amount of widening between the lower lateral
attic wall and ossicles. The measurements were then compared with results
from a 20-person control group. The test group’s imaging results displayed
blunting of the scutum, loss of the lower lateral attic wall, and statistically
significant widening of the lateral attic. All three of these signs suggest auto-
atticotomy. Based on these findings, Dr. Moonis and her team concluded that
an auto-atticotomy may resemble signs of a surgical atticotomy on an MDCT
scan.