用于评估人工耳蜗的 96 千伏和 120 千伏锥束 CT 的比较。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING BMC Medical Imaging Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1186/s12880-024-01322-4
Iris Burck, Ibrahim Yel, Simon Martin, Moritz H Albrecht, Vitali Koch, Christian Booz, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Benjamin Kaltenbach, Hanns Ackermann, Juha Koivisto, Silke Helbig, Timo Stöver, Thomas J Vogl, Jan-Erik Scholtz
{"title":"用于评估人工耳蜗的 96 千伏和 120 千伏锥束 CT 的比较。","authors":"Iris Burck, Ibrahim Yel, Simon Martin, Moritz H Albrecht, Vitali Koch, Christian Booz, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Benjamin Kaltenbach, Hanns Ackermann, Juha Koivisto, Silke Helbig, Timo Stöver, Thomas J Vogl, Jan-Erik Scholtz","doi":"10.1186/s12880-024-01322-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the diagnostic value of 120-kV with conventional 96-kV Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) of the temporal bone after cochlear implant (CI) surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included CBCT scans after CI surgery between 06/17 and 01/18. CBCT allowed examinations with 96-kV or 120-kV; other parameters were the same. Two radiologists independently evaluated following criteria on 5-point Likert scales: osseous spiral lamina, inner and outer cochlear wall, semi-circular canals, mastoid trabecular structure, overall image quality, metal and motion artefacts, depiction of intracochlear electrode position and visualisation of single electrode contacts. Effective radiation dose was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-five patients (females, n = 39 [52.0%], mean age, 55.8 ± 16.5 years) were scanned with 96-kV (n = 32, 42.7%) and 120-kV (n = 43, 57.3%) protocols including CI models from three vendors (vendor A n = 7; vendor B n = 43; vendor C n = 25). Overall image quality, depiction of anatomical structures, and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV images compared to 96-kV (all p < = 0.018). Anatomical structures and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV CBCT for CI models from vendor A and C, while 120-kV did not provide improved image quality in CI models from vendor B. Radiation doses were significantly higher for 120-kV scans compared to 96-kV (0.15 vs. 0.08 mSv, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>120-kV and 96-kV CBCT provide good diagnostic images for the postoperative CI evaluation. While 120-kV showed improved depiction of temporal bone and CI electrode position compared to 96-kV in most CI models, the 120-kV protocol should be chosen wisely due to a substantially higher radiation exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":9020,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11177440/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of 96-kV and 120-kV cone-beam CT for the assessment of cochlear implants.\",\"authors\":\"Iris Burck, Ibrahim Yel, Simon Martin, Moritz H Albrecht, Vitali Koch, Christian Booz, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Benjamin Kaltenbach, Hanns Ackermann, Juha Koivisto, Silke Helbig, Timo Stöver, Thomas J Vogl, Jan-Erik Scholtz\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12880-024-01322-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the diagnostic value of 120-kV with conventional 96-kV Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) of the temporal bone after cochlear implant (CI) surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included CBCT scans after CI surgery between 06/17 and 01/18. CBCT allowed examinations with 96-kV or 120-kV; other parameters were the same. Two radiologists independently evaluated following criteria on 5-point Likert scales: osseous spiral lamina, inner and outer cochlear wall, semi-circular canals, mastoid trabecular structure, overall image quality, metal and motion artefacts, depiction of intracochlear electrode position and visualisation of single electrode contacts. Effective radiation dose was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-five patients (females, n = 39 [52.0%], mean age, 55.8 ± 16.5 years) were scanned with 96-kV (n = 32, 42.7%) and 120-kV (n = 43, 57.3%) protocols including CI models from three vendors (vendor A n = 7; vendor B n = 43; vendor C n = 25). Overall image quality, depiction of anatomical structures, and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV images compared to 96-kV (all p < = 0.018). Anatomical structures and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV CBCT for CI models from vendor A and C, while 120-kV did not provide improved image quality in CI models from vendor B. Radiation doses were significantly higher for 120-kV scans compared to 96-kV (0.15 vs. 0.08 mSv, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>120-kV and 96-kV CBCT provide good diagnostic images for the postoperative CI evaluation. While 120-kV showed improved depiction of temporal bone and CI electrode position compared to 96-kV in most CI models, the 120-kV protocol should be chosen wisely due to a substantially higher radiation exposure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9020,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11177440/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-024-01322-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-024-01322-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:比较 120 kV 和传统 96 kV 锥束 CT(CBCT)对人工耳蜗手术后颞骨的诊断价值:比较人工耳蜗(CI)手术后 120-kV 与传统 96-kV 锥形束 CT(CBCT)对颞骨的诊断价值:这项回顾性研究包括 17 年 6 月至 18 年 1 月期间 CI 手术后的 CBCT 扫描。CBCT 允许使用 96 千伏或 120 千伏进行检查,其他参数相同。两位放射科医生以 5 分李克特量表独立评估了以下标准:骨性螺旋体、耳蜗内外壁、半圆管、乳突小梁结构、整体图像质量、金属和运动伪影、蜗内电极位置描述和单电极接触的可视化。对有效辐射剂量进行了评估:75 名患者(女性,n = 39 [52.0%],平均年龄为 55.8 ± 16.5 岁)接受了 96 千伏(n = 32,42.7%)和 120 千伏(n = 43,57.3%)方案扫描,包括来自三个供应商的 CI 型号(供应商 A n = 7;供应商 B n = 43;供应商 C n = 25)。与 96-kV 相比,120-kV 图像的整体图像质量、解剖结构描绘和电极位置明显更好(均为 p 结论:120-kV 和 96-kV CB 图像的整体图像质量、解剖结构描绘和电极位置明显更好):120 千伏和 96 千伏 CBCT 为术后 CI 评估提供了良好的诊断图像。虽然在大多数 CI 模型中,120-kV 对颞骨和 CI 电极位置的描绘比 96-kV 更好,但由于 120-kV 的辐射量要高得多,因此应明智选择 120-kV 方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of 96-kV and 120-kV cone-beam CT for the assessment of cochlear implants.

Background: To compare the diagnostic value of 120-kV with conventional 96-kV Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) of the temporal bone after cochlear implant (CI) surgery.

Methods: This retrospective study included CBCT scans after CI surgery between 06/17 and 01/18. CBCT allowed examinations with 96-kV or 120-kV; other parameters were the same. Two radiologists independently evaluated following criteria on 5-point Likert scales: osseous spiral lamina, inner and outer cochlear wall, semi-circular canals, mastoid trabecular structure, overall image quality, metal and motion artefacts, depiction of intracochlear electrode position and visualisation of single electrode contacts. Effective radiation dose was assessed.

Results: Seventy-five patients (females, n = 39 [52.0%], mean age, 55.8 ± 16.5 years) were scanned with 96-kV (n = 32, 42.7%) and 120-kV (n = 43, 57.3%) protocols including CI models from three vendors (vendor A n = 7; vendor B n = 43; vendor C n = 25). Overall image quality, depiction of anatomical structures, and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV images compared to 96-kV (all p < = 0.018). Anatomical structures and electrode position were rated significantly better in 120-kV CBCT for CI models from vendor A and C, while 120-kV did not provide improved image quality in CI models from vendor B. Radiation doses were significantly higher for 120-kV scans compared to 96-kV (0.15 vs. 0.08 mSv, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: 120-kV and 96-kV CBCT provide good diagnostic images for the postoperative CI evaluation. While 120-kV showed improved depiction of temporal bone and CI electrode position compared to 96-kV in most CI models, the 120-kV protocol should be chosen wisely due to a substantially higher radiation exposure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Imaging
BMC Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
198
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Imaging is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the development, evaluation, and use of imaging techniques and image processing tools to diagnose and manage disease.
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic value and efficacy evaluation value of transvaginal color doppler ultrasound parameters for uterine scar pregnancy and sub-type after cesarean section Predicting invasion in early-stage ground-glass opacity pulmonary adenocarcinoma: a radiomics-based machine learning approach Deep learning-based techniques for estimating high-quality full-dose positron emission tomography images from low-dose scans: a systematic review The reliability of virtual non-contrast reconstructions of photon-counting detector CT scans in assessing abdominal organs Clinical performance of deep learning-enhanced ultrafast whole-body scintigraphy in patients with suspected malignancy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1