In vitro measurements of radiation exposure with different modalities (computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography) for imaging the petrous bone with a pediatric anthropomorphic phantom.
Children
Cochlear implantation
Computed tomography
Cone beam computed tomography
Petrous bone
Radiation exposure
Journal
Pediatric radiology
ISSN: 1432-1998
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0365332
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
02
03
2021
accepted:
18
01
2022
revised:
02
12
2021
pubmed:
24
4
2022
medline:
18
5
2022
entrez:
23
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Various imaging modalities, such as multi-detector computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT are commonly used in infants for the diagnosis of hearing loss and surgical planning of implantation hearing aid devices, with differing results. We compared three different imaging modalities available in our institution, including a high-class CT scanner, a mid-class CT scanner and an angiography system with a cone beam CT option, for image quality and radiation exposure in a phantom study. While scanning an anthropomorphic phantom imitating a 1-year-old child with vendor-provided routine protocols, organ doses, surface doses and effective doses were determined for these three modalities with thermoluminescent dosimeters. The image quality was evaluated using the signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) and the spatial resolution of a line-pair insert in the phantom head. The dose efficiency, defined as the ratio of SDNR and effective dose, was also compared. The organ and surface doses were lowest with the high-class CT protocol, but the image quality was the worst. Image quality was best with the cone beam CT protocol, which, however, had the highest radiation exposure in this study, whereas the mid-class CT was in between. Based on our results, high-end CT should be used for surgical planning because it has the lowest dose, while the image quality is still sufficient for this purpose. However, if highest image quality is needed and required, e.g., by ENT surgeons, the other modalities should be considered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Various imaging modalities, such as multi-detector computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT are commonly used in infants for the diagnosis of hearing loss and surgical planning of implantation hearing aid devices, with differing results.
OBJECTIVE
We compared three different imaging modalities available in our institution, including a high-class CT scanner, a mid-class CT scanner and an angiography system with a cone beam CT option, for image quality and radiation exposure in a phantom study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
While scanning an anthropomorphic phantom imitating a 1-year-old child with vendor-provided routine protocols, organ doses, surface doses and effective doses were determined for these three modalities with thermoluminescent dosimeters. The image quality was evaluated using the signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) and the spatial resolution of a line-pair insert in the phantom head. The dose efficiency, defined as the ratio of SDNR and effective dose, was also compared.
RESULTS
The organ and surface doses were lowest with the high-class CT protocol, but the image quality was the worst. Image quality was best with the cone beam CT protocol, which, however, had the highest radiation exposure in this study, whereas the mid-class CT was in between.
CONCLUSION
Based on our results, high-end CT should be used for surgical planning because it has the lowest dose, while the image quality is still sufficient for this purpose. However, if highest image quality is needed and required, e.g., by ENT surgeons, the other modalities should be considered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35460347
doi: 10.1007/s00247-022-05308-8
pii: 10.1007/s00247-022-05308-8
pmc: PMC9107409
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1125-1133Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2002 Nov;10(4):573-613, v
pubmed: 12685496
Hear Res. 2014 Oct;316:65-72
pubmed: 25124151
Acta Otolaryngol. 2015 May;135(5):466-72
pubmed: 25675836
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Feb;31(2):226-9
pubmed: 19892812
Surg Radiol Anat. 2017 Jun;39(6):663-671
pubmed: 28093617
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Dec;47(13):1817-1824
pubmed: 28983677
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017 Aug;37(4):270-275
pubmed: 28872156
Eur Radiol. 2009 Apr;19(4):1027-34
pubmed: 18987864
Am J Otolaryngol. 2017 Nov - Dec;38(6):649-653
pubmed: 28942233
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Feb;274(2):737-742
pubmed: 27752754
Radiographics. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):1057-67
pubmed: 20631368
Pediatr Radiol. 2010 Nov;40(11):1748-54
pubmed: 20552187
Surg Radiol Anat. 2011 Mar;33(2):123-8
pubmed: 20706719
Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332
pubmed: 18082557
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Nov;275(11):2797-2803
pubmed: 30159727
Clin Neuroradiol. 2015 Oct;25 Suppl 2:291-7
pubmed: 26091842
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jun;24(6):1257-65
pubmed: 24691631
Ann ICRP. 2012 Feb;41(1-2):1-322
pubmed: 22925378
Acta Otolaryngol. 2015;135(12):1337-43
pubmed: 26313160
Radiographics. 2006 Jan-Feb;26(1):115-24
pubmed: 16418247
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2016 Jun;39(2):583-9
pubmed: 27098155