Literature DB >> 31272961

Standardization of Temporal Bone CT Planes across a Multisite Academic Institution.

J P Guenette1, L Hsu2, B Czajkowski2, D B Nunez2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Variable head positioning in the CT gantry results in variable and inconsistent temporal bone imaging planes. Our aim was to evaluate whether an automated postprocessing algorithm or an educational intervention with postprocessing by a technologist could result in consistent temporal bone image reformations into planes referenced to the lateral semicircular canal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Instructions to reformat small-FOV images in planes referenced to the lateral semicircular canal were posted at 12 CT scanner consoles and e-mailed to 65 CT technologists at a single multisite institution. Automated reformatted images were also produced. The angles between the technologist- and automated-reformatted axial image planes and lateral semicircular canal planes were measured. Group differences were calculated with Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests. Differences in homogeneity of variances were calculated with Fligner-Killeen tests.
RESULTS: Two hundred ten temporal bones were imaged in 4 months following the intervention. Reformats by technologists were accurate in 87% of the axial and 81% of the coronal planes, with a trend toward improvement with time. Eighty percent of incorrectly reformatted images occurred at off-site, inpatient, and emergency department scanners. The error angle was significantly lower for technologist-reformatted images (median, 4.9°) than for acquisition plane images (median, 14.6°; P = 3 × 10-14) or automated-reformatted images (median, 13.8°; P = 9 × 10-13). The angle error variance was significantly more homogeneous for technologist-reformatted images (P = 3 × 10-8) and automated-reformatted images (P = 1 × 10-5) than for acquisition plane images.
CONCLUSIONS: Both technologist and automated reformatting of temporal bone images resulted in significantly less imaging plane variance compared with images reformatted in the acquisition plane, but reformatting by technologists remains necessary at our institution given our preference for standardized planes referencing the lateral semicircular canals.
© 2019 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31272961      PMCID: PMC7048470          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A6111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  9 in total

1.  Interpreting chest radiographs without visual search.

Authors:  H L Kundel; C F Nodine
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Measurement for Detection of Incomplete Partition Type II Anomalies on MR Imaging.

Authors:  K L Reinshagen; H D Curtin; A M Quesnel; A F Juliano
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Perceptual skill, radiology expertise, and visual test performance with NINA and WALDO.

Authors:  C F Nodine; E A Krupinski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Scrambled eyes? Disrupting scene structure impedes focal processing and increases bottom-up guidance.

Authors:  Tom Foulsham; Rana Alan; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Recall of random and distorted chess positions: implications for the theory of expertise.

Authors:  F Gobet; H A Simon
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1996-07

Review 6.  Informatics in radiology: what can you see in a single glance and how might this guide visual search in medical images?

Authors:  Trafton Drew; Karla Evans; Melissa L-H Võ; Francine L Jacobson; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 5.333

7.  Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images.

Authors:  H L Kundel; P S La Follette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1972-06       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors.

Authors:  Jennifer J Donald; Stuart A Barnard
Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.735

9.  SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.

Authors:  Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 7.035

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Measuring the cochlea and cochlear implant electrode depth.

Authors:  Jeffrey P Guenette
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 5.315

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.