OBJECTIVES: To evaluate image quality and radiation dose of a state of the art cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) system and a multislice computed tomography (MSCT) system in patients with sinonasal poliposis. METHODS: In this retrospective study two radiologists evaluated 57 patients with sinonasal poliposis who underwent a CBCT or MSCT sinus examination, along with a control group of 90 patients with normal radiological findings. Tissue doses were measured using a phantom model with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). RESULTS: Overall image quality in CBCT was scored significantly higher than in MSCT in patients with normal radiologic findings (p-value: 0.00001). In patients with sinonasal poliposis, MSCT scored significantly higher than CBCT (p-value: 0.00001). The average effective dose for MSCT was 42% higher compared to CBCT (108 μSv vs 63 μSv). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT and MSCT are both suited for the evaluation of sinonasal poliposis. In patients with sinonasal poliposis, clinically important structures of the paranasal sinuses can be better delineated with MSCT, whereas in patients without sinonasal poliposis, CBCT turns out to define the important structures of the sinonasal region better. However, given the lower radiation dose, CBCT can be considered for the evaluation of the sinonasal structures in patients with sinonasal poliposis. KEY POINTS: • CBCT and MSCT are both suited for evaluation of sinonasal poliposis. • Effective dose for MSCT was 42% higher compared to CBCT. • In patients with sinonasal poliposis, clinically important anatomical structures are better delineated with MSCT. • In patients with normal radiological findings, clinically important anatomical structures are better delineated with CBCT.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate image quality and radiation dose of a state of the art cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) system and a multislice computed tomography (MSCT) system in patients with sinonasal poliposis. METHODS: In this retrospective study two radiologists evaluated 57 patients with sinonasal poliposis who underwent a CBCT or MSCT sinus examination, along with a control group of 90 patients with normal radiological findings. Tissue doses were measured using a phantom model with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). RESULTS: Overall image quality in CBCT was scored significantly higher than in MSCT in patients with normal radiologic findings (p-value: 0.00001). In patients with sinonasal poliposis, MSCT scored significantly higher than CBCT (p-value: 0.00001). The average effective dose for MSCT was 42% higher compared to CBCT (108 μSv vs 63 μSv). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT and MSCT are both suited for the evaluation of sinonasal poliposis. In patients with sinonasal poliposis, clinically important structures of the paranasal sinuses can be better delineated with MSCT, whereas in patients without sinonasal poliposis, CBCT turns out to define the important structures of the sinonasal region better. However, given the lower radiation dose, CBCT can be considered for the evaluation of the sinonasal structures in patients with sinonasal poliposis. KEY POINTS: • CBCT and MSCT are both suited for evaluation of sinonasal poliposis. • Effective dose for MSCT was 42% higher compared to CBCT. • In patients with sinonasal poliposis, clinically important anatomical structures are better delineated with MSCT. • In patients with normal radiological findings, clinically important anatomical structures are better delineated with CBCT.
Authors: M Dahmani-Causse; M Marx; O Deguine; B Fraysse; B Lepage; B Escudé Journal: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 2.080
Authors: Wytske J Fokkens; Valerie J Lund; Joachim Mullol; Claus Bachert; Isam Alobid; Fuad Baroody; Noam Cohen; Anders Cervin; Richard Douglas; Philippe Gevaert; Christos Georgalas; Herman Goossens; Richard Harvey; Peter Hellings; Claire Hopkins; Nick Jones; Guy Joos; Livije Kalogjera; Bob Kern; Marek Kowalski; David Price; Herbert Riechelmann; Rodney Schlosser; Brent Senior; Mike Thomas; Elina Toskala; Richard Voegels; De Yun Wang; Peter John Wormald Journal: Rhinology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Marcin Fraczek; Maciej Guzinski; Monika Morawska-Kochman; Kamil H Nelke; Tomasz Krecicki Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Christian Güldner; Isabell Diogo; Julia Leicht; Magis Mandapathil; Thomas Wilhelm; Afshin Teymoortash; Evelyn Jahns Journal: Int J Otolaryngol Date: 2017-01-31
Authors: Michael Dau; Paul Marciak; Bial Al-Nawas; Henning Staedt; Abdulmonem Alshiri; Bernhard Frerich; Peer Wolfgang Kämmerer Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2017-04-05