Evaluation of Stapes Image Quality with Ultra-High-Resolution CT in Comparison with Conebeam CT and High-Resolution CT in Cadaveric Heads.
Authors
Affiliations (7)
Affiliations (7)
- From the Guilloz Imaging Department (U.P., S.B., F.B., A.B., P.A.G.T., R.G.), University Hospital Center of Nancy, Nancy, France.
- INSERM, IADI (U.P., M.D., G.H., A.B., P.A.G.T., R.G.), Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France.
- CIC, Innovation Technologique (U.P., M.D., G.H., A.B., P.A.G.T., R.G.), Université de Lorraine, University Hospital Center of Nancy, Nancy, France.
- Faculté de Médecine (G.F.), Université de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France.
- Department of Radiology (M.E.), Hospital des 15-20, Paris, France.
- ENT Surgery Department, Central Hospital (C.P.-W.), University Hospital Center of Nancy, Nancy, France.
- From the Guilloz Imaging Department (U.P., S.B., F.B., A.B., P.A.G.T., R.G.), University Hospital Center of Nancy, Nancy, France [email protected].
Abstract
Conventional CT imaging techniques are ineffective in adequately depicting the stapes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of high-resolution (HR), ultra-high-resolution (UHR) with and without deep learning reconstruction (DLR), and conebeam (CB)-CT scanners to image the stapes by using micro-CT as a reference. Eleven temporal bone specimens were imaged by using all imaging modalities. Subjective image analysis was performed by grading image quality on a Likert scale, and objective image analysis was performed by taking various measurements of the stapes superstructure and footplate. Image noise and radiation dose were also recorded. The global image quality scores were all worse than micro-CT (<i>P</i> ≤ .01). UHR-CT with and without DLR had the second-best global image quality scores (<i>P</i> > .99), which were both better than CB-CT (<i>P</i> = .01 for both). CB-CT had a better global image quality score than HR-CT (<i>P</i> = .01). Most of the measurements differed between HR-CT and micro-CT (<i>P</i> ≤ .02), but not between UHR-CT with and without DLR, CB-CT, and micro-CT (<i>P</i> > .06). The air noise value of UHR-CT with DLR was not different from CB-CT (<i>P</i> = .49), but HR-CT and UHR-CT without DLR exhibited higher values than UHR-CT with DLR (<i>P</i> ≤ .001). HR-CT and UHR-CT with and without DLR yielded the same effective radiation dose values of 1.23 ± 0.11 (1.13-1.35) mSv, which was 4 times higher than that of CB-CT (0.35 ± 0 mSv, <i>P</i> ≤ .01). UHR-CT with and without DLR offers comparable objective image analysis to CB-CT while providing superior subjective image quality. However, this is achieved at the cost of a higher radiation dose. Both CB-CT and UHR-CT with and without DLR are more effective than HR-CT in objective and subjective image analysis.