R A Helal1, R Jacob2, M A Elshinnawy3, A I Othman3, I M Al-Dhamari4, D W Paulus4, T T Abdelaziz3. 1. From the Radiodiagnosis Department (R.A.H., M.A.E., A.I.O., T.T.A.), Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt raniahelal@med.asu.edu.eg. 2. HNOplus (R.J.), Höhr-Grenzhausen, Germany. 3. From the Radiodiagnosis Department (R.A.H., M.A.E., A.I.O., T.T.A.), Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. 4. Institute for computational visualistics (I.M.A.-D., D.W.P.), Koblenz University, Koblenz, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cone-beam CT is being increasingly used in head and neck imaging. We compared cone-beam CT with multidetector CT to assess postoperative implant placement and delineate finer anatomic structures, image quality, and radiation dose used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included 51 patients with cochlear implants and postoperative imaging via temporal bone cone-beam CT (n = 32 ears) or multidetector CT (n = 19 ears) between 2012 and 2017. We evaluated the visualization quality of single electrode contacts, the scalar position of the electrodes, cochlear walls, mastoid facial canal, metallic artifacts (using a 4-level visual score), and the ability to measure the insertion angle of the electrodes. The signal-to-noise ratio and radiation dose were also evaluated. RESULTS: Cone-beam CT was more sensitive for visualizing the scalar position of the electrodes (P = .046), cochlear outer wall (P = .001), single electrode contacts (P < .001), and osseous spiral lamina (P = .004) and had fewer metallic artifacts (P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between both methods in visualization of the modiolus (P = .37), cochlear inner wall (P > .99), and mastoid facial canal wall (P = .07) and the ability to measure the insertion angle of the electrodes (P > .99). The conebeam CT group had significantly lower dose-length product (P < .001), but multidetector CT showed a higher signal-to-noise ratio in both bone and air (P = .22 and P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cone-beam CT in patients with cochlear implants provides images with higher spatial resolution and fewer metallic artifacts than multidetector CT at a relatively lower radiation dose.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cone-beam CT is being increasingly used in head and neck imaging. We compared cone-beam CT with multidetector CT to assess postoperative implant placement and delineate finer anatomic structures, image quality, and radiation dose used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included 51 patients with cochlear implants and postoperative imaging via temporal bone cone-beam CT (n = 32 ears) or multidetector CT (n = 19 ears) between 2012 and 2017. We evaluated the visualization quality of single electrode contacts, the scalar position of the electrodes, cochlear walls, mastoid facial canal, metallic artifacts (using a 4-level visual score), and the ability to measure the insertion angle of the electrodes. The signal-to-noise ratio and radiation dose were also evaluated. RESULTS: Cone-beam CT was more sensitive for visualizing the scalar position of the electrodes (P = .046), cochlear outer wall (P = .001), single electrode contacts (P < .001), and osseous spiral lamina (P = .004) and had fewer metallic artifacts (P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between both methods in visualization of the modiolus (P = .37), cochlear inner wall (P > .99), and mastoid facial canal wall (P = .07) and the ability to measure the insertion angle of the electrodes (P > .99). The conebeam CT group had significantly lower dose-length product (P < .001), but multidetector CT showed a higher signal-to-noise ratio in both bone and air (P = .22 and P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cone-beam CT in patients with cochlear implants provides images with higher spatial resolution and fewer metallic artifacts than multidetector CT at a relatively lower radiation dose.
Authors: Sharon L Cushing; Michael J Daly; Claudiu G Treaba; Harley Chan; Jonathan C Irish; Susan Blaser; Karen A Gordon; Blake C Papsin Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Mark A Rafferty; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Yvonne Chan; Michael J Daly; Douglas J Moseley; David A Jaffray; Jonathan C Irish Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Bruce R Whiting; Timothy A Holden; Barry S Brunsden; Charles C Finley; Margaret W Skinner Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Shakeel R Saeed; David Selvadurai; Tim Beale; Nigel Biggs; Brendan Murray; Peter Gibson; Frank Risi; Paul Boyd Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: I Diogo; U Walliczeck; J Taube; N Franke; A Teymoortash; J Werner; C Güldner Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: Felix Eisenhut; Lava Taha; Michael Manhart; Vivian Thimsen; Konstantinos Mantsopoulos; Heinrich Iro; Joachim Hornung; Arnd Dörfler; Stefan Lang Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.995