Elina M Peltola1, Teemu Mäkelä1, Ville Haapamäki1, Anni Suomalainen1, Junnu Leikola2, Seppo K Koskinen3, Mika Kortesniemi1, Mika P Koivikko1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, HUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 2. 2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 3. 3 Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the optimal post-operative CT imaging method that enables best visualization of facial bony structures in the vicinity of osteosynthesis material. METHODS: Conducted at Töölö Hospital (Helsinki, Finland), this study relied on scanning a phantom with CBCT, 64-slice CT and high-definition multislice CT with dual-energy scan (providing monochromatic images of 70-, 100-, 120- and 140-keV energy levels) and iterative reconstruction (IR) methods. Two radiologists assessed the image quality, and the assessments were analyzed. In addition, a physicist performed a semi-quantitative analysis of the metal-induced artefacts. RESULTS: The three subjects most easily assessed were the loose screw and both the bone structure and the fracture further away from the screw and the plate. Soft tissues adjacent to the screw and the plate remained more difficult for assessment. Both image interpreters agreed that the artefacts disturbed their assessments under dual energy. Metal artefacts disturbed the least under multislice CT with IR [adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) and VEO]. Neither interpreter found metal suppression helpful in CBCT. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT with or without a metal artefact reduction algorithm was not optimal for post-operative facial imaging compared with multislice CT with IR. Multislice CT with ASiR filtering offered good image quality performance with fast image volume reconstruction, representing the current sweet spot in post-operative maxillofacial imaging.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the optimal post-operative CT imaging method that enables best visualization of facial bony structures in the vicinity of osteosynthesis material. METHODS: Conducted at Töölö Hospital (Helsinki, Finland), this study relied on scanning a phantom with CBCT, 64-slice CT and high-definition multislice CT with dual-energy scan (providing monochromatic images of 70-, 100-, 120- and 140-keV energy levels) and iterative reconstruction (IR) methods. Two radiologists assessed the image quality, and the assessments were analyzed. In addition, a physicist performed a semi-quantitative analysis of the metal-induced artefacts. RESULTS: The three subjects most easily assessed were the loose screw and both the bone structure and the fracture further away from the screw and the plate. Soft tissues adjacent to the screw and the plate remained more difficult for assessment. Both image interpreters agreed that the artefacts disturbed their assessments under dual energy. Metal artefacts disturbed the least under multislice CT with IR [adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) and VEO]. Neither interpreter found metal suppression helpful in CBCT. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT with or without a metal artefact reduction algorithm was not optimal for post-operative facial imaging compared with multislice CT with IR. Multislice CT with ASiR filtering offered good image quality performance with fast image volume reconstruction, representing the current sweet spot in post-operative maxillofacial imaging.
Authors: J Rydberg; K A Buckwalter; K S Caldemeyer; M D Phillips; D J Conces; A M Aisen; S A Persohn; K K Kopecky Journal: Radiographics Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: A Korn; M Fenchel; B Bender; S Danz; T K Hauser; D Ketelsen; T Flohr; C D Claussen; M Heuschmid; U Ernemann; H Brodoefel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R Schulze; U Heil; D Gross; D D Bruellmann; E Dranischnikow; U Schwanecke; E Schoemer Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Seppo K Koskinen; Ville V Haapamäki; Jari Salo; Nina C Lindfors; Mika Kortesniemi; Lauri Seppälä; Kimmo T Mattila Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Brian G Turner; James T Rhea; James H Thrall; Andrew B Small; Robert A Novelline Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Juergen Fornaro; Sebastian Leschka; Dennis Hibbeln; Anthony Butler; Nigel Anderson; Gregor Pache; Hans Scheffel; Simon Wildermuth; Hatem Alkadhi; Paul Stolzmann Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2011-01-19