Ramya Balachandran1, Daniel Schurzig, J Michael Fitzpatrick, Robert F Labadie. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Avenue South, 10450 Medical Center East, South Tower, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. ramya.balachandran@vanderbilt.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Portable CT scanners are beneficial for diagnosis in the intensive care unit, emergency room, and operating room. Portable fixed-base versus translating-base CT systems were evaluated for otologic image-guided surgical (IGS) applications based on geometric accuracy and utility for percutaneous cochlear implantation. METHODS: Five cadaveric skulls were fitted with fiducial markers and scanned using both a translating-base, 8-slice CT scanner (CereTom(®)) and a fixed-base, flat-panel, volume CT (fpVCT) scanner (Xoran xCAT(®)). Images were analyzed for: (a) subjective quality (i.e., noise), (b) consistency of attenuation measurements (Hounsfield units) across similar tissue, and (c) geometric accuracy of fiducial marker positions. The utility of these scanners in clinical IGS cases was tested. RESULTS: Five cadaveric specimens were scanned using each of the scanners. The translating-base, 8-slice CT scanner had spatially consistent Hounsfield units, and the image quality was subjectively good. However, because of movement variations during scanning, the geometric accuracy of fiducial marker positions was low. The fixed-base, fpVCT system had high spatial resolution, but the images were noisy and had spatially inconsistent attenuation measurements, while the geometric representation of the fiducial markers was highly accurate. CONCLUSION: Two types of portable CT scanners were evaluated for otologic IGS. The translating-base, 8-slice CT scanner provided better image quality than a fixed-base, fpVCT scanner. However, the inherent error in three-dimensional spatial relationships by the translating-based system makes it suboptimal for otologic IGS use.
PURPOSE: Portable CT scanners are beneficial for diagnosis in the intensive care unit, emergency room, and operating room. Portable fixed-base versus translating-base CT systems were evaluated for otologic image-guided surgical (IGS) applications based on geometric accuracy and utility for percutaneous cochlear implantation. METHODS: Five cadaveric skulls were fitted with fiducial markers and scanned using both a translating-base, 8-slice CT scanner (CereTom(®)) and a fixed-base, flat-panel, volume CT (fpVCT) scanner (Xoran xCAT(®)). Images were analyzed for: (a) subjective quality (i.e., noise), (b) consistency of attenuation measurements (Hounsfield units) across similar tissue, and (c) geometric accuracy of fiducial marker positions. The utility of these scanners in clinical IGS cases was tested. RESULTS: Five cadaveric specimens were scanned using each of the scanners. The translating-base, 8-slice CT scanner had spatially consistent Hounsfield units, and the image quality was subjectively good. However, because of movement variations during scanning, the geometric accuracy of fiducial marker positions was low. The fixed-base, fpVCT system had high spatial resolution, but the images were noisy and had spatially inconsistent attenuation measurements, while the geometric representation of the fiducial markers was highly accurate. CONCLUSION: Two types of portable CT scanners were evaluated for otologic IGS. The translating-base, 8-slice CT scanner provided better image quality than a fixed-base, fpVCT scanner. However, the inherent error in three-dimensional spatial relationships by the translating-based system makes it suboptimal for otologic IGS use.
Authors: Robert F Labadie; Pallavi Chodhury; Ebru Cetinkaya; Ramya Balachandran; David S Haynes; Micahel R Fenlon; Andrzej S Jusczyzck; J Michael Fitzpatrick Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Robert Frederick Labadie; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Ramya Balachandran; Omid Majdani; J Michael Fitzpatrick Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Subinoy Das; Patricia A Maeso; Ramon E Figueroa; Brent A Senior; John M Delgaudio; Michael J Sillers; Rod J Schlosser; Stilianos E Kountakis Journal: Am J Rhinol Date: 2008 Mar-Apr
Authors: C R Maurer; J M Fitzpatrick; M Y Wang; R L Galloway; R J Maciunas; G S Allen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Sajendra Nithiananthan; Sebastian Schafer; Daniel J Mirota; J Webster Stayman; Wojciech Zbijewski; Douglas D Reh; Gary L Gallia; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ramya Balachandran; Fitsum A Reda; Jack H Noble; Grégoire S Blachon; Benoit M Dawant; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Pooyan Rohani; Jason Pile; Lueder A Kahrs; Ramya Balachandran; Grégoire S Blachon; Nabil Simaan; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Ramya Balachandran; Grégoire S Blachon; Jason E Mitchell; Jack H Noble; Charles G Wright; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Ramya Balachandran; Betty S Tsai; Tara Ramachandra; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie; Marc L Bennett Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Mengzhou Li; Zheng Fang; Wenxiang Cong; Chuang Niu; Weiwen Wu; Josef Uher; James Bennett; Jay T Rubinstein; G E Wang Journal: IEEE Access Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Harley H L Chan; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Allan Vescan; Michael J Daly; Eitan Prisman; Jonathan C Irish Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 3.240