Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Aug;30(7):1419-24.
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1560. Epub 2009 Apr 15.

Temporal bone imaging: comparison of flat panel volume CT and multisection CT

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Temporal bone imaging: comparison of flat panel volume CT and multisection CT

O Majdani et al. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Aug.

Abstract

Background and purpose: A recent development in radiology is the use of flat panel detectors in CT to obtain higher-resolution images. This technique is known as flat panel volume CT (fpVCT). We sought to compare the image quality and diagnostic value of 2 different flat panel detector-equipped scanners: one is a prototype fpVCT scanner, and the other is a so-called flat panel digital volume tomography (fpDVT) scanner, which is routinely used in clinical setup with current state-of-the-art multisection CT (MSCT) scanners.

Materials and methods: Five explanted temporal bones and 2 whole-head cadaveric specimens were scanned with fpVCT, fpDVT, and MSCT scanners. The image series were blindly evaluated by 3 trained observers who rated 38 anatomic structures with regard to their delineation/appearance.

Results: Although the image quality obtained with fpVCT and fpDVT was rated significantly better compared with MSCT on isolated temporal bones, the differences were not significant when whole cadaveric heads were scanned.

Conclusions: Theoretic and practical advantages exist for flat panel detector-equipped scanners, including improved image quality. However, when imaging whole cadaveric heads, no significant difference could be demonstrated between them and standard-of-care MSCT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Images of the incus, ambomalleolar joint, incostapedial joint, and the stapes in explanted temporal bone (TB) and whole-head specimens (WH) obtained by 3 different scanners.
Fig 2.
Fig 2.
Images of the cochlea, vestibular duct, cochlear duct, and facial nerve in explanted temporal bone (TB) and whole-head specimens (WH).
Fig 3.
Fig 3.
Three different examiners rated image quality with regard to delimitation of 38 different anatomic substructures as viewed in explanted temporal bones (TB) and whole-head (WH) specimens, each specimen being scanned with an MSCT scanner, an fpDVT scanner, and an fpVCT scanner.

References

    1. Kalender WA. Der Einsatz von Flachbilddetektoren für die CT-Bildgebung [The use of flat panel detectors for CT imaging]. Radiologe 2003;43:379–87 - PubMed
    1. Kalender WA, Kyriakou Y. Flat-detector computed tomography (FD-CT). Eur Radiol 2007;17:2767–79 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gupta R, Grasruck M, Suess C, et al. Ultra-high resolution flat panel volume CT: fundamental principles, design architecture, and system characterization. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1191–205 - PubMed
    1. Peltonen LI, Aarnisalo AA, Kortesniemi MK, et al. Limited cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the middle ear: a comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2007;48:207–12 - PubMed
    1. Ross W, Cody DD, Hazle JD. Design and performance characteristics of a digital flat panel computed tomography system. Med Phys 2006;33:1888–901 - PubMed

MeSH terms