BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A recent development in radiology is the use of flat panel detectors in CT to obtain higher-resolution images. This technique is known as flat panel volume CT (fpVCT). We sought to compare the image quality and diagnostic value of 2 different flat panel detector-equipped scanners: one is a prototype fpVCT scanner, and the other is a so-called flat panel digital volume tomography (fpDVT) scanner, which is routinely used in clinical setup with current state-of-the-art multisection CT (MSCT) scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five explanted temporal bones and 2 whole-head cadaveric specimens were scanned with fpVCT, fpDVT, and MSCT scanners. The image series were blindly evaluated by 3 trained observers who rated 38 anatomic structures with regard to their delineation/appearance. RESULTS: Although the image quality obtained with fpVCT and fpDVT was rated significantly better compared with MSCT on isolated temporal bones, the differences were not significant when whole cadaveric heads were scanned. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretic and practical advantages exist for flat panel detector-equipped scanners, including improved image quality. However, when imaging whole cadaveric heads, no significant difference could be demonstrated between them and standard-of-care MSCT.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A recent development in radiology is the use of flat panel detectors in CT to obtain higher-resolution images. This technique is known as flat panel volume CT (fpVCT). We sought to compare the image quality and diagnostic value of 2 different flat panel detector-equipped scanners: one is a prototype fpVCT scanner, and the other is a so-called flat panel digital volume tomography (fpDVT) scanner, which is routinely used in clinical setup with current state-of-the-art multisection CT (MSCT) scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five explanted temporal bones and 2 whole-head cadaveric specimens were scanned with fpVCT, fpDVT, and MSCT scanners. The image series were blindly evaluated by 3 trained observers who rated 38 anatomic structures with regard to their delineation/appearance. RESULTS: Although the image quality obtained with fpVCT and fpDVT was rated significantly better compared with MSCT on isolated temporal bones, the differences were not significant when whole cadaveric heads were scanned. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretic and practical advantages exist for flat panel detector-equipped scanners, including improved image quality. However, when imaging whole cadaveric heads, no significant difference could be demonstrated between them and standard-of-care MSCT.
Authors: Frederike Hassepass; Wolfgang Maier; Antje Aschendorff; Stefan Bulla; Werner Vach; Roland Laszig; Tanja D Grauvogel Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Nicolas Gerber; Brett Bell; Kate Gavaghan; Christian Weisstanner; Marco Caversaccio; Stefan Weber Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: C Güldner; S Wiegand; R Weiss; S Bien; A Sesterhenn; A Teymoortash; I Diogo Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: W Zhou; J I Lane; M L Carlson; M R Bruesewitz; R J Witte; K K Koeller; L J Eckel; R E Carter; C H McCollough; S Leng Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ramya Balachandran; Daniel Schurzig; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Robert F Labadie Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2011-07-21 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Christian Güldner; Julia Heinrichs; Rainer Weiß; Annette Paula Zimmermann; Benjamin Dassinger; Siegfried Bien; Jochen Alfred Werner; Isabell Diogo Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 2.175