Image quality of flat-panel computed tomography using 2 different acquisition times versus multidetector computed tomography in whole-head temporal bone specimen
- 8 Downloads
Imaging of temporal bone and skull base acquire high resolution due to the small anatomic structures with high clinical relevance. The purpose of this study was to compare image quality of the temporal bone in standard 20 s protocol flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) with the new time- and dose improved 10 s protocol as well as with 128 slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). The aim was to evaluate the new time- and dose improved 10 s protocol.
10 whole-skull preparations—20 temporal bones—were scanned with either 128 slice MDCT CT (SOMATOM Definition AS + , Siemens, Erlangen) or FPCT (AXIOM-Artis, Siemens, Erlangen) using 10 s or 20 s protocol.
We show here that overall FPCT provides significantly better image quality and improved delimitation of clinically relevant structures in the temporal bone compared to 128 slice MDCT. Especially the shorter, dose saving 10 s protocol of the FPCT is still superior to 128 slice MDCT. The 20 s FPCT protocol was only significantly superior in identification of the cochlear apical turn and can thereby be used specifically in clinical cases with pathologies in this area.
The 10 s FPCT protocol yields a significantly better image quality than MDCT in imaging finer structures of the temporal bone.
KeywordsFlat panel computed tomography Multidetector computed tomography Temporal bone Image quality
We would like to thank the scientific assistants of the Institute of Clinical Anatomy and Cell Analysis, Tuebingen for their active support in handling and transporting the whole-head temporal bone specimen.
This work was supported by the Fortüne Program (University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany) under Grant 2339-0-0.
The authors state that accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee of the medical faculty at the Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, reference number: 371/2017BO2 and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Anatomical specimens were obtained from the body donation program of the Institute of Clinical Anatomy and Cell Analysis of the University of Tuebingen with written permission of the donors.
- 1.Bartel-Friedrich S, Wulke C (2007) Classification and diagnosis of ear malformations. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 6:05Google Scholar
- 7.Conley DB, Tan B, Bendok BR, Batjer HH, Chandra R, Sidle D, Rahme RJ, Adel JG, Fishman AJ (2011) Comparison of Intraoperative portable CT scanners in skull base and endoscopic sinus surgery: single center case series. Skull Base 21(4):261–270. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1280681 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Rotter N, Schmitz B, Sommer F, Rohrer S, Schuler PJ, Bischof F, Scheithauer MO, Hoffmann TK (2017) First use of flat-panel computed tomography during cochlear implant surgery: perspectives for the use of advanced therapies in cochlear implantation. Hno 65(1):61–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0213-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Kolditz D, Struffert T, Kyriakou Y, Bozzato A, Dorfler A, Kalender WA (2012) Volume-of-interest imaging of the inner ear in a human temporal bone specimen using a robot- driven C-arm flat panel detector CT system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33(10):E124–128. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2577 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Bartling SH, Majdani O, Gupta R, Rodt T, Dullin C, Fitzgerald PF, Becker H (2007) Large scan field, high spatial resolution flat-panel detector based volumetric CT of the whole human skull base and for maxillofacial imaging. Dento Maxillo Fac Radiol 36(6):317–327. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/19164138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Saeed SR, Selvadurai D, Beale T, Biggs N, Murray B, Gibson P, Risi F, Boyd P (2014) The use of cone-beam computed tomography to determine cochlear implant electrode position in human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 35(8):1338–1344. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000295 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Struffert T, Hertel V, Kyriakou Y, Krause J, Engelhorn T, Schick B, Iro H, Hornung J, Doerfler A (2010) Imaging of cochlear implant electrode array with flat-detector CT and conventional multislice CT: comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Acta Otolaryngol 130(4):443–452. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016480903292700 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Struffert T, Hauer M, Banckwitz R, Kohler C, Royalty K, Doerfler A (2014) Effective dose to patient measurements in flat-detector and multislice computed tomography: a comparison of applications in neuroradiology. Eur Radiol 24(6):1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3136-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Geleijns J, Salvado Artells M, de Bruin PW, Matter R, Muramatsu Y, McNitt-Gray MF (2009) Computed tomography dose assessment for a 160 mm wide, 320 detector row, cone beam CT scanner. Phys Med Biol 54(10):3141–3159. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/10/012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Leng S, Diehn FE, Lane JI, Koeller KK, Witte RJ, Carter RE, McCollough CH (2015) Temporal bone CT: improved image quality and potential for decreased radiation dose using an ultra-high-resolution scan mode with an iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36(9):1599–1603. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4338 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Raupach R, Schmidt B, Lietzmann F, Leidecker C, Allmendinger T, Flohr T, Schad LR, Schoenberg SO, Henzler T (2015) Initial results of a new generation dual source CT system using only an in-plane comb filter for ultra-high resolution temporal bone imaging. Eur Radiol 25(1):178–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3406-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar