Title Page - include author details here only!
© 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology Title Page: Author‘s response regarding letter-to-the-editor (DMFR-S-16-00416)
Authors: Corresponding author Daniel F Fouladi,*
O
FS
[email protected]
R O
Coauthors:Hediyeh Mahmoudian*, Masoumeh Johari*
*Institution:
U
N
C
O
R R
E
C T
E
D
Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran
P
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of
Manuscript - do not include author details!
Author‘s response regarding letter-to-the-editor (DMFR-S-16-00416)
FS
First of all, we appreciate your interest in this publication. Actually, our study was carried out in the department of radiology and the CBCT was done only as an alternative for a
O
second CT request for any reason by attending physicians/neurosurgeons out of this
R O
department. In other words, we did not alter the routine clinical management of any patient in this work except for a previously authorized replacement of CT with CBCT.
Regarding the second comment about using independent examiners who were blinded to
P
the findings of other modalities, it should be noted that the principal objective of this study
D
was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of each imaging technique per se in dealing with
E
cases who were suspected of having isolated orbital floor fractures. In fact, determining the
C T
incremental value of adding ultrasonography to CT or CBCT was beyond our predefined aims.
E
Finally, this concept that performing a CT examination is inevitable in managing patients
R R
with suspected orbital fractures has been adequately discussed in the original manuscript. Indeed, performing CT scanning is not advisable in any traumatic patient including those
O
with clinically suspected isolated orbital floor fractures.1 In addition, as we emphasized in the text due to a high diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in managing such cases it
C
could be considered among our diagnostic options when conducting CT/CBCT is not feasible for any reason.
U
N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
References
1.
Lelli GJ, Jr., Milite J, Maher E. Orbital floor fractures: evaluation, indications,
approach, and pearls from an ophthalmologist's perspective. Facial Plast Surg 2007;23:190-
C
O
R R
E
C T
E
D
P
R O
O
FS
9.
U
N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
© 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology Title Page: Author‘s response regarding letter-to-the-editor (DMFR-S-16-00416)
Authors: Corresponding author Daniel F Fouladi,*
O
FS
[email protected]
R O
Coauthors:Hediyeh Mahmoudian*, Masoumeh Johari*
*Institution:
U
N
C
O
R R
E
C T
E
D
Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran
P
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of
Manuscript - do not include author details!
Author‘s response regarding letter-to-the-editor (DMFR-S-16-00416)
FS
First of all, we appreciate your interest in this publication. Actually, our study was carried out in the department of radiology and the CBCT was done only as an alternative for a
O
second CT request for any reason by attending physicians/neurosurgeons out of this
R O
department. In other words, we did not alter the routine clinical management of any patient in this work except for a previously authorized replacement of CT with CBCT.
Regarding the second comment about using independent examiners who were blinded to
P
the findings of other modalities, it should be noted that the principal objective of this study
D
was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of each imaging technique per se in dealing with
E
cases who were suspected of having isolated orbital floor fractures. In fact, determining the
C T
incremental value of adding ultrasonography to CT or CBCT was beyond our predefined aims.
E
Finally, this concept that performing a CT examination is inevitable in managing patients
R R
with suspected orbital fractures has been adequately discussed in the original manuscript. Indeed, performing CT scanning is not advisable in any traumatic patient including those
O
with clinically suspected isolated orbital floor fractures.1 In addition, as we emphasized in the text due to a high diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in managing such cases it
C
could be considered among our diagnostic options when conducting CT/CBCT is not feasible for any reason.
U
N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
References
1.
Lelli GJ, Jr., Milite J, Maher E. Orbital floor fractures: evaluation, indications,
approach, and pearls from an ophthalmologist's perspective. Facial Plast Surg 2007;23:190-
C
O
R R
E
C T
E
D
P
R O
O
FS
9.
U
N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
