Objective: We compared the image quality and radiation dose of flat-panel CT (FPCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) performed respectively with an angiographic unit and a 128-slice CT scanner. We investigated whether the higher spatial resolution of FPCT translated into higher image quality and we sought to eliminate inter-subject variability by scanning temporal bone specimens with both techniques. Materials and methods: Fifteen temporal bone specimens were imaged with FPCT and MSCT. Two neuroradiologists experienced in otoradiology evaluated 30 anatomical structures with a 0–2 score; 18 structures important from a clinical perspective were assigned a twofold value in calculation of the overall score. The radiation dose was calculated through the use of an anthropomorphic phantom. Results: The image quality was significantly higher for FPCT than MSCT for 10 of the 30 anatomical structures; the overall score was also significantly higher for FPCT (p = 0.001). The equivalent dose of the two techniques was very similar, but with different effective doses to the organs. Conclusion: FPCT performed on an angiographic unit provides higher image quality in temporal bone assessment compared to MSCT performed on a 128-slice CT scanner thanks to its higher spatial resolution, with comparable equivalent doses but different effective doses to the organs.

Flat-panel CT versus 128-slice CT in temporal bone imaging : assessment of image quality and radiation dose / L. Piergallini, E. Scola, B. Tuscano, R. Brambilla, M. Campoleoni, G. Raimondi, L. Lombardi, F. Di Berardino, D. Zanetti, C. Sina, F. Triulzi, G. Conte. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0720-048X. - 106(2018 Sep), pp. 106-113.

Flat-panel CT versus 128-slice CT in temporal bone imaging : assessment of image quality and radiation dose

L. Piergallini;B. Tuscano;F. Di Berardino;F. Triulzi;G. Conte
2018-09

Abstract

Objective: We compared the image quality and radiation dose of flat-panel CT (FPCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) performed respectively with an angiographic unit and a 128-slice CT scanner. We investigated whether the higher spatial resolution of FPCT translated into higher image quality and we sought to eliminate inter-subject variability by scanning temporal bone specimens with both techniques. Materials and methods: Fifteen temporal bone specimens were imaged with FPCT and MSCT. Two neuroradiologists experienced in otoradiology evaluated 30 anatomical structures with a 0–2 score; 18 structures important from a clinical perspective were assigned a twofold value in calculation of the overall score. The radiation dose was calculated through the use of an anthropomorphic phantom. Results: The image quality was significantly higher for FPCT than MSCT for 10 of the 30 anatomical structures; the overall score was also significantly higher for FPCT (p = 0.001). The equivalent dose of the two techniques was very similar, but with different effective doses to the organs. Conclusion: FPCT performed on an angiographic unit provides higher image quality in temporal bone assessment compared to MSCT performed on a 128-slice CT scanner thanks to its higher spatial resolution, with comparable equivalent doses but different effective doses to the organs.
Anatomy; Cone-beam computed tomography; Ear; Multidetector computed tomography; Radiation dosage; Temporal bone; Cadaver; Humans; Temporal Bone; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Radiation Dosage; Tomography Scanners, X-Ray Computed; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Settore MED/37 - Neuroradiologia
Settore MED/32 - Audiologia
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0720048X18302523-main.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 4.51 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.51 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/640897
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact