G Conte1, E Scola2, S Calloni3, R Brambilla4, M Campoleoni4, L Lombardi2, F Di Berardino5, D Zanetti5, L M Gaini6, F Triulzi7,2, C Sina2. 1. From the Postgraduation School of Radiodiagnostics (G.C., S.C.) giorgioconte.unimed@gmail.com. 2. Neuroradiology Unit (E.S., L.L., F.T., C.S.). 3. From the Postgraduation School of Radiodiagnostics (G.C., S.C.). 4. Health Physics Unit (R.B., M.C.), Fondazione Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Ca'Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 5. Audiology Unit (F.D.B., D.Z.). 6. Otolaryngology Unit (L.M.G.), Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Fondazione Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Ca'Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation (F.T.), Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cross-sectional imaging of the temporal bone is challenging because of the complexity and small dimensions of the anatomic structures. We evaluated the role of flat panel angiography in the cross-sectional imaging of the temporal bone by comparing its image quality and radiation dose with a 64-section multisection CT scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected 29 multisection CT and 29 flat panel angiography images of normal whole-head temporal bones. Image quality was assessed by 2 neuroradiologists, who rated the visualization of 30 anatomic structures with a 3-point ordinal scale. The radiation dose was assessed with an anthropomorphic phantom. RESULTS: Flat panel angiography showed better image quality than multisection CT in depicting the anterior and posterior crura of the stapes, the footplate of the stapes, the stapedius muscle, and the anterior ligament of the malleus (P < .05). In contrast, multisection CT showed better image quality than flat panel angiography in assessing the tympanic membrane, the bone marrow of the malleus and incus, the tendon of the tensor tympani, the interscalar septum, and the modiolus of the cochlea (P < .05). Flat panel angiography had a significantly higher overall image quality rating than multisection CT (P = .035). A reduction of the effective dose of approximately 40% was demonstrated for flat panel angiography compared with multisection CT. CONCLUSIONS: Flat panel angiography shows strengths and weaknesses compared with multisection CT. It is more susceptible to artifacts, but due to the higher spatial resolution, it shows equal or higher image quality in assessing some bony structures of diagnostic interest. The lower radiation dose is an additional advantage of flat panel angiography.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cross-sectional imaging of the temporal bone is challenging because of the complexity and small dimensions of the anatomic structures. We evaluated the role of flat panel angiography in the cross-sectional imaging of the temporal bone by comparing its image quality and radiation dose with a 64-section multisection CT scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected 29 multisection CT and 29 flat panel angiography images of normal whole-head temporal bones. Image quality was assessed by 2 neuroradiologists, who rated the visualization of 30 anatomic structures with a 3-point ordinal scale. The radiation dose was assessed with an anthropomorphic phantom. RESULTS: Flat panel angiography showed better image quality than multisection CT in depicting the anterior and posterior crura of the stapes, the footplate of the stapes, the stapedius muscle, and the anterior ligament of the malleus (P < .05). In contrast, multisection CT showed better image quality than flat panel angiography in assessing the tympanic membrane, the bone marrow of the malleus and incus, the tendon of the tensor tympani, the interscalar septum, and the modiolus of the cochlea (P < .05). Flat panel angiography had a significantly higher overall image quality rating than multisection CT (P = .035). A reduction of the effective dose of approximately 40% was demonstrated for flat panel angiography compared with multisection CT. CONCLUSIONS: Flat panel angiography shows strengths and weaknesses compared with multisection CT. It is more susceptible to artifacts, but due to the higher spatial resolution, it shows equal or higher image quality in assessing some bony structures of diagnostic interest. The lower radiation dose is an additional advantage of flat panel angiography.
Authors: G Conte; S Casale; L Caschera; F M Lo Russo; C Paolella; C Cinnante; F Di Berardino; D Zanetti; D Stocchetti; E Scola; L Bassi; F Triulzi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Franz-Tassilo Müller-Graff; Lukas Ilgen; Philipp Schendzielorz; Johannes Voelker; Johannes Taeger; Anja Kurz; Rudolf Hagen; Tilmann Neun; Kristen Rak Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.236