Preview

Variant: 1 Adult. Acute posttraumatic visual defect. Suspect orbital injury. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
CT maxillofacial without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
CT orbits without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
CT head without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
Radiography face	Usually Not Appropriate
Radiography orbit	Usually Not Appropriate
Arteriography cerebral	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 2 Adult. Acute vision loss. Infection or inflammatory disorder suspected. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
CT maxillofacial with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
CT orbits with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
CT orbits without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
Arteriography cerebral	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRV head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRV head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRV head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTV head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 3 Adult. Chronic or progressive unilateral vision loss. Intraorbital mass-like lesion suspected or vascular lesion suspected. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
CT orbits with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
Arteriography cerebral	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 4 Adult. Acute vision loss, retinal structural abnormality suspected. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 5 Adult. Acute or chronic vision loss, optic nerve abnormality suspected. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
MRA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT maxillofacial without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 6 Adult. Bitemporal hemianopia or junctional scotoma. Sellar or parasellar mass suspected. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
MRI sella without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate
Arteriography cerebral	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head and neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRA head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI sella with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI sella without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT orbits without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT sella with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT sella without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CT sella without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head and neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
CTA head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate

Elliott R. Friedman, MD^a; Amy F. Juliano, MD^b; Mari Hagiwara, MD^c; Mohit Agarwal, MD^d; Paul M. Bunch, MD^e; Judah Burns, MD^f; Prachi Dubey, MBBS, MPH^g; Maria K. Gule-Monroe, MD^h; Tarek N. Hanna, MDⁱ; Christopher H. Hunt, MD^j; Vikas Jain, MD^k; Andrew G. Lee, MD^l; Daniel E. Meltzer, MD^m; Rohini N. Nadgir, MDⁿ; Nailyn Rasool, MD^o; Joseph F. Rizzo III, MD^p; Elaine Situ-LaCasse, MD^q; Robert Y. Shih, MD^r.

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please visit https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

1. [33983373] Flaxman AD, Wittenborn JS, Robalik T, et al. Prevalence of Visual Acuity Loss or Blindness in the US: A Bayesian Meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmology. 139(7):717-723, 2021 Jul 01.JAMA Ophthalmol. 139(7):717-723, 2021 Jul 01.
2. [22284056] Graves JS, Galetta SL. Acute visual loss and other neuro-ophthalmologic emergencies: management. Neurol Clin 2012;30:75-99, viii.
3. [14746934] Muller-Forell W, Pitz S. Orbital pathology. Eur J Radiol. 2004; 49(2):105-142.
4. [16219844] Chen CC, Chang PC, Shy CG, Chen WS, Hung HC. CT angiography and MR angiography in the evaluation of carotid cavernous sinus fistula prior to embolization: a comparison of techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(9):2349-2356.
5. [37236753] Utukuri PS, Shih RY, Ajam AA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Headache: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S70-S93.
6. [33958108] Shih RY, Burns J, Ajam AA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Head Trauma: 2021 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:S13-S36.
7. [26208417] Tantiwongkosi B, Salamon N. Imaging of Retrochiasmal and Higher Cortical Visual Disorders. [Review]. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America. 25(3):411-24, 2015 Aug.
8. [16567710] Zhang X, Kedar S, Lynn MJ, Newman NJ, Biousse V. Homonymous hemianopias: clinical-anatomic correlations in 904 cases. Neurology. 66(6):906-10, 2006 Mar 28.
9. [15672276] Jager HR. Loss of vision: imaging the visual pathways. [Review] [28 refs]. European Radiology. 15(3):501-10, 2005 Mar.Eur Radiol. 15(3):501-10, 2005 Mar.
10. [34794589] Ledbetter LN, Burns J, Shih RY, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Cerebrovascular Diseases-Aneurysm, Vascular Malformation, and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 18(11S):S283-S304, 2021 11.J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 18(11S):S283-S304, 2021 11.
11. [38823945] Pannell JS, Corey AS, Shih RY, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Cerebrovascular Diseases-Stroke and Stroke-Related Conditions. J Am Coll Radiol 2024;21:S21-S64.
12. [30310941] Ferreira TA, Saraiva P, Genders SW, Buchem MV, Luyten GPM, Beenakker JW. CT and MR imaging of orbital inflammation. [Review]. Neuroradiology. 60(12):1253-1266, 2018 Dec.
13. [25086805] Chazen JL, Lantos J, Gupta A, Lelli GJ Jr, Phillips CD. Orbital soft-tissue trauma. [Review]. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America. 24(3):425-37, vii, 2014 Aug.
14. [14762746] Jank S, Emshoff R, Etzelsdorfer M, Strobl H, Nicasi A, Norer B. Ultrasound versus computed tomography in the imaging of orbital floor fractures. Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. 62(2):150-4, 2004 Feb.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 62(2):150-4, 2004 Feb.
15. [30763021] Karolczak-Kulesza M, Rudyk M, Niestrata-Ortiz M. Recommendations for ultrasound examination in ophthalmology. Part II: Orbital ultrasound. Journal of Ultrasonography. 18(75):349-354, 2018.J Ultrason. 18(75):349-354, 2018.
16. [24002686] Kilker BA, Holst JM, Hoffmann B. Bedside ocular ultrasound in the emergency department. [Review]. European Journal of Emergency Medicine. 21(4):246-53, 2014 Aug.Eur J Emerg Med. 21(4):246-53, 2014 Aug.
17. [-3198357] Aumann S, Donner S, Fischer J, Muller F. Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT): Principle and Technical Realization. In: Bille JF, ed. High Resolution Imaging in Microscopy and Ophthalmology: New Frontiers in Biomedical Optics. Cham (CH); 2019:59-85.
18. [33405442] Moffatt J, Hughes D, Bhatti N, Holmes S. Orbital Bone Fractures in a Central London Trauma Center: A Retrospective Study of 582 Patients. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 32(4):1334-1337, 2021 Jun 01.
19. [36266195] Priore P, Di Giorgio D, Marchese G, et al. Orbital bone fractures: 10 years' experience at the Rome trauma centre: retrospective analysis of 543 patients. British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. 60(10):1368-1372, 2022 12.
20. [25086804] Uzelac A, Gean AD. Orbital and facial fractures. [Review]. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America. 24(3):407-24, vii, 2014 Aug.
21. [23529135] Shah HA, Shipchandler TZ, Sufyan AS, Nunery WR, Lee HB. Use of fracture size and soft tissue herniation on computed tomography to predict diplopia in isolated orbital floor fractures. American Journal of Otolaryngology. 34(6):695-8, 2013 Nov-Dec.
22. [30075904] Frohwitter G, Wimmer S, Goetz C, et al. Evaluation of a computed-tomography-based assessment scheme in treatment decision-making for isolated orbital floor fractures. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. 46(9):1550-1554, 2018 Sep.
23. [27218019] Kim YH, Park Y, Chung KJ. Considerations for the Management of Medial Orbital Wall Blowout Fracture. [Review]. Archives of Plastic Surgery. 43(3):229-36, 2016 May.Arch. plast. surg.. 43(3):229-36, 2016 May.
24. [22964404] Caranci F, Cicala D, Cappabianca S, Briganti F, Brunese L, Fonio P. Orbital fractures: role of imaging. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 33(5):385-91, 2012 Oct.
25. [34334750] Sakong Y, Chung KJ, Kim YH. The Incidence of Traumatic Optic Neuropathy Associated With Subtypes of Orbital Wall Fracture. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 33(1):93-96, 2022 Jan-Feb 01.
26. [31489490] Santamaria J, Mehta A, Reed D, Blegen H, Bishop B, Davies B. Orbital roof fractures as an indicator for concomitant ocular injury. Graefes Archive for Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 257(11):2541-2545, 2019 Nov.
27. [25882280] Bodanapally UK, Shanmuganathan K, Shin RK, et al. Hyperintense Optic Nerve due to Diffusion Restriction: Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Traumatic Optic Neuropathy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(8):1536-1541.
28. [10406604] Levin LA, Beck RW, Joseph MP, Seiff S, Kraker R. The treatment of traumatic optic neuropathy: the International Optic Nerve Trauma Study. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1268-77.
29. [25397707] Zimmerer R, Rana M, Schumann P, Gellrich NC. Diagnosis and treatment of optic nerve trauma. [Review]. Facial Plastic Surgery. 30(5):518-27, 2014 Oct.
30. [26208419] Winegar BA, Gutierrez JE. Imaging of Orbital Trauma and Emergent Non-traumatic Conditions. [Review]. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America. 25(3):439-56, 2015 Aug.
31. [31564352] Kondoff M, Nassrallah G, Ross M, Deschenes J. Incidence and outcomes of retrobulbar hematoma diagnosed by computed tomography in cases of orbital fracture. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 54(5):606-610, 2019 10.
32. [31806931] McCallum E, Keren S, Lapira M, Norris JH. Orbital Compartment Syndrome: An Update With Review Of The Literature. [Review]. Clinical Ophthalmology. 13:2189-2194, 2019.Clin. ophthalmol.. 13:2189-2194, 2019.
33. [33055563] Pontell ME, Jackson K, Golinko M, Drolet BC. Influence of Radiographic Soft Tissue Findings on Clinical Entrapment in Patients With Orbital Fractures. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 32(4):1427-1431, 2021 Jun 01.
34. [28455003] Huang LK, Wang HH, Tu HF, Fu CY. Simultaneous head and facial computed tomography scans for assessing facial fractures in patients with traumatic brain injury. Injury. 48(7):1417-1422, 2017 Jul.
35. [29503015] Lee HJ, Kim YJ, Seo DW, et al. Incidence of intracranial injury in orbital wall fracture patients not classified as traumatic brain injury. Injury. 49(5):963-968, 2018 May.
36. [32936015] Ibanez L, Navallas M, de Caceres IA, Martinez-Chamorro E, Borruel S. CT Features of Posttraumatic Vision Loss. [Review]. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 217(2):469-479, 2021 08.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 217(2):469-479, 2021 08.
37. [18936033] LeBedis CA, Sakai O. Nontraumatic orbital conditions: diagnosis with CT and MR imaging in the emergent setting. [Review] [26 refs]. Radiographics. 28(6):1741-53, 2008 Oct.Radiographics. 28(6):1741-53, 2008 Oct.
38. [18842758] Kapur R, Sepahdari AR, Mafee MF, et al. MR imaging of orbital inflammatory syndrome, orbital cellulitis, and orbital lymphoid lesions: the role of diffusion-weighted imaging. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 30(1):64-70, 2009 Jan.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 30(1):64-70, 2009 Jan.
39. [23053380] Ketenci I, Unlu Y, Vural A, Dogan H, Sahin MI, Tuncer E. Approaches to subperiosteal orbital abscesses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 270(4):1317-27, 2013 Mar.
40. [36830848] Hutchings KR, Fritzhand SJ, Esmaeli B, et al. Graves' Eye Disease: Clinical and Radiological Diagnosis. [Review]. Biomedicines. 11(2), 2023 Jan 22.Biomedicines. 11(2), 2023 Jan 22.
41. [30978149] Mahalingam HV, Mani SE, Patel B, et al. Imaging Spectrum of Cavernous Sinus Lesions with Histopathologic Correlation. [Review]. Radiographics. 39(3):795-819, 2019 May-Jun.Radiographics. 39(3):795-819, 2019 May-Jun.
42. [30115678] Boujan T, Neuberger U, Pfaff J, et al. Value of Contrast-Enhanced MRA versus Time-of-Flight MRA in Acute Ischemic Stroke MRI. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 39(9):1710-1716, 2018 09.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 39(9):1710-1716, 2018 09.
43. [32923259] Jyani R, Ranade D, Joshi P. Spectrum of Orbital Cellulitis on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Cureus. 12(8):e9663, 2020 Aug 11.Cureus. 12(8):e9663, 2020 Aug 11.
44. [27010526] Sadigh G, Mullins ME, Saindane AM. Diagnostic Performance of MRI Sequences for Evaluation of Dural Venous Sinus Thrombosis. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 206(6):1298-306, 2016 Jun.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 206(6):1298-306, 2016 Jun.
45. [32154332] Bhatia H, Kaur R, Bedi R. MR imaging of cavernous sinus thrombosis. European Journal of Radiology Open. 7:100226, 2020.Eur J Radiol Open. 7:100226, 2020.
46. [25195185] Heran F, Berges O, Blustajn J, et al. Tumor pathology of the orbit. [Review]. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 95(10):933-44, 2014 Oct.
47. [18356442] Poon CS, Sze G, Johnson MH. Orbital lesions: differentiating vascular and nonvascular etiologic factors. AJR. 2008; 190(4):956-965.
48. [24614543] Rootman J, Heran MK, Graeb DA. Vascular malformations of the orbit: classification and the role of imaging in diagnosis and treatment strategies*. [Review]. Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 30(2):91-104, 2014 Mar-Apr.
49. [23514029] Aryasit O, Preechawai P, Aui-Aree N. Clinical presentation, aetiology and prognosis of orbital apex syndrome. Orbit 2013;32:91-4.
50. [26518678] Purohit BS, Vargas MI, Ailianou A, et al. Orbital tumours and tumour-like lesions: exploring the armamentarium of multiparametric imaging. Insights Into Imaging. 7(1):43-68, 2016 Feb.Insights imaging. 7(1):43-68, 2016 Feb.
51. [23470516] Bonavolonta G, Strianese D, Grassi P, et al. An analysis of 2,480 space-occupying lesions of the orbit from 1976 to 2011. [Review]. Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 29(2):79-86, 2013 Mar-Apr.Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 29(2):79-86, 2013 Mar-Apr.
52. [24108560] Tailor TD, Gupta D, Dalley RW, Keene CD, Anzai Y. Orbital neoplasms in adults: clinical, radiologic, and pathologic review. [Review]. Radiographics. 33(6):1739-58, 2013 Oct.
53. [31939615] Kalemaki MS, Karantanas AH, Exarchos D, et al. PET/CT and PET/MRI in ophthalmic oncology (Review). [Review]. International Journal of Oncology. 56(2):417-429, 2020 Feb.Int J Oncol. 56(2):417-429, 2020 Feb.
54. [24565273] Feltgen N, Walter P. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment--an ophthalmologic emergency. [Review]. Deutsches Arzteblatt International. 111(1-2):12-21; quiz 22, 2014 Jan 06.
55. [29404803] Botwin A, Engel A, Wasyliw C. The use of ocular ultrasound to diagnose retinal detachment: a case demonstrating the sonographic findings. Emergency Radiology. 25(4):445-447, 2018 Aug.EMERG. RADIOL.. 25(4):445-447, 2018 Aug.
56. [28506603] Amer R, Nalci H, Yalcindag N. Exudative retinal detachment. [Review]. Survey of Ophthalmology. 62(6):723-769, 2017 Nov - Dec.
57. [33677974] Mac Grory B, Schrag M, Biousse V, et al. Management of Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. [Review]. Stroke. 52(6):e282-e294, 2021 06.Stroke. 52(6):e282-e294, 2021 06.
58. [26258861] Schrag M, Youn T, Schindler J, Kirshner H, Greer D. Intravenous Fibrinolytic Therapy in Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: A Patient-Level Meta-analysis. JAMA Neurology. 72(10):1148-54, 2015 Oct.JAMA Neurol. 72(10):1148-54, 2015 Oct.
59. [31229520] Abel A, McClelland C, Lee MS. Critical review: Typical and atypical optic neuritis. [Review]. Survey of Ophthalmology. 64(6):770-779, 2019 Nov - Dec.
60. [36062458] Darakdjian M, Chaves H, Hernandez J, Cejas C. MRI pattern in acute optic neuritis: Comparing multiple sclerosis, NMO and MOGAD. Neuroradiology Journal. 36(3):267-272, 2023 Jun.
61. [33395326] Winter A, Chwalisz B. MRI Characteristics of NMO, MOG and MS Related Optic Neuritis. [Review]. Seminars in Ophthalmology. 35(7-8):333-342, 2020 Nov 16.SEMIN. OPHTHALMOL.. 35(7-8):333-342, 2020 Nov 16.
62. [35091465] Denis M, Woillez JP, Smirnov VM, et al. Optic Nerve Lesion Length at the Acute Phase of Optic Neuritis Is Predictive of Retinal Neuronal Loss. Neurology neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation. 9(2), 2022 03.
63. [33766824] Pravata E, Roccatagliata L, Sormani MP, et al. Dedicated 3D-T2-STIR-ZOOMit Imaging Improves Demyelinating Lesion Detection in the Anterior Visual Pathways of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 42(6):1061-1068, 2021 06.
64. [33584521] Li H, Zhou H, Sun J, et al. Optic Perineuritis and Its Association With Autoimmune Diseases. Frontiers in neurology [electronic resource].. 11:627077, 2020.
65. [31435862] Cellina M, Floridi C, Rosti C, et al. MRI of acute optic neuritis (ON) at the first episode: Can we predict the visual outcome and the development of multiple sclerosis (MS)?. Radiologia Medica. 124(12):1296-1303, 2019 Dec.
66. [36017841] Yang R, Qu B, Liu WV, et al. Detection of Acute Optic Neuritis using Contrast-Enhanced 3-Dimensional Cube T1-Weighted Imaging: A Preliminary Study. Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening. 26(8):1480-1487, 2023.
67. [33737263] Schroeder A, Van Stavern G, Orlowski HLP, et al. Detection of Optic Neuritis on Routine Brain MRI without and with the Assistance of an Image Postprocessing Algorithm. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 42(6):1130-1135, 2021 06.
68. [34281903] Petroulia VD, Brugger D, Hoepner R, et al. MRI signs helpful in the differentiation of patients with anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy and optic neuritis. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 107(1):121-126, 2023 01.
69. [31756609] Healy GM, Redmond CE, Gaughan M, et al. The accuracy of standard multiple sclerosis MRI brain sequences for the diagnosis of optic neuropathy. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 38:101521, 2020 Feb.
70. [29683029] Pino-Lopez L, Wenz H, Bohme J, et al. Contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed FLAIR for the characterization of leptomeningeal inflammation in optic neuritis. Multiple Sclerosis. 25(6):792-800, 2019 05.
71. [35439224] Hur M, Madhavan AA, Hodge DO, et al. Comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Acute Demyelinating Optic Neuritis. Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology. 42(3):297-302, 2022 09 01.
72. [11545635] Purvin V, Kawasaki A, Jacobson DM. Optic perineuritis: clinical and radiographic features. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1299-306.
73. [29563953] Adesina OO, Scott McNally J, Salzman KL, et al. Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Post-contrast Enhancement in Differentiating Optic Neuritis and Non-arteritic Anterior Optic Neuropathy. Neuro-Ophthalmology. 42(2):90-98, 2018 Apr.NEURO-OPHTHALMOLOGY. 42(2):90-98, 2018 Apr.
74. [28495949] Remond P, Attye A, Lecler A, et al. The Central Bright Spot Sign: A Potential New MR Imaging Sign for the Early Diagnosis of Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy due to Giant Cell Arteritis. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 38(7):1411-1415, 2017 Jul.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 38(7):1411-1415, 2017 Jul.
75. [34851430] Mournet S, Sene T, Charbonneau F, et al. Early diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla detects ischemic changes of the optic nerve in anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. European Radiology. 32(5):3588-3596, 2022 May.
76. [23891029] Menjot de Champfleur N, Menjot de Champfleur S, Galanaud D, Leboucq N, Bonafe A. Imaging of the optic chiasm and retrochiasmal visual pathways. [Review]. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 94(10):957-71, 2013 Oct.
77. [23975080] Kwancharoen R, Blitz AM, Tavares F, Caturegli P, Gallia GL, Salvatori R. Clinical features of sellar and suprasellar meningiomas. Pituitary. 17(4):342-8, 2014 Aug.
78. [25248586] Buchfelder M, Schlaffer S. Imaging of pituitary pathology. Handb Clin Neurol 2014;124:151-66.
79. [36799985] Ugga L, Franca RA, Scaravilli A, et al. Neoplasms and tumor-like lesions of the sellar region: imaging findings with correlation to pathology and 2021 WHO classification. Neuroradiology 2023;65:675-99.
80. [24103356] Cirillo M, Scomazzoni F, Cirillo L, et al. Comparison of 3D TOF-MRA and 3D CE-MRA at 3T for imaging of intracranial aneurysms. European Journal of Radiology. 82(12):e853-9, 2013 Dec.Eur J Radiol. 82(12):e853-9, 2013 Dec.
81. [28887618] HaiFeng L, YongSheng X, YangQin X, et al. Diagnostic value of 3D time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography for detecting intracranial aneurysm: a meta-analysis. [Review]. Neuroradiology. 59(11):1083-1092, 2017 Nov.Neuroradiology. 59(11):1083-1092, 2017 Nov.
82. [35286054] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
83. [-3128692] American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination