超高分辨率光子计数探测器CT与传统CT系统相比对人工耳蜗及颞骨结构评估的改进
Improved assessment of the cochlear implant and temporal bone structures with ultra-high resolution photon-counting detector CT compared to conventional CT systems.
文献信息
| PMID | 42867657 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Judith van der Bie |
| 作者单位 | Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. |
| 期刊 | European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery |
| SCI 分区 | Q1 |
| IF | 2.3 |
| 研究类型 | 临床研究 · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
目的： 本研究评估光子计数探测器CT（PCD-CT）与传统CT系统在人工耳蜗成像中的图像质量，并旨在确定最佳扫描参数。
方法： 将三种人工耳蜗模型插入三个死后人类标本头部。每个头部在三种高端CT系统上扫描：SOMATOM Edge、SOMATOM Force和NAEOTOM Alpha。共获得192个重建图像，包括不同的管电压（120-150 kV）、锡过滤和层厚（0.2-0.6 mm）。对每个扫描仪应用了多种重建核。计算骨与软组织的对比噪声比（CNR）。两名放射科医生独立评估解剖结构、植入物可见性和整体图像质量，采用5点Likert量表，并对检测解剖裂开的诊断信心进行评分。
结果： 与Edge和Force相比，PCD-CT在植入物、解剖结构和一般图像质量方面显示出显著更高的图像质量评分（p < 0.001）。PCD-CT还产生了显著更高的CNR（平均23.5 vs. 13.8 [Edge]和12.7 [Force]）和更大的诊断信心。对于PCD-CT，使用0.2 mm层厚和Hr89核在140 kV下实现了最佳图像质量。以半剂量（27.5 mGy）获得的PCD-CT扫描显示CNR无显著差异，但与标准剂量成像相比，主观评分略低。
结论： 与Edge和Force相比，PCD-CT在人工耳蜗成像中提供了更优越的图像质量和诊断信心。使用140 kV、0.2 mm层厚和Hr89核可获得最佳结果。尽管剂量减少是可行的，但会略微影响主观图像质量。
英文摘要
PURPOSE: This study evaluates the image quality of photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) compared to conventional CT systems in cochlear implant imaging and aims to determine optimal scan parameters.
METHODS: Three cochlear implant models were inserted into three post-mortem human specimen heads. Each head was scanned on three high-end CT systems: SOMATOM Edge, SOMATOM Force and NAEOTOM Alpha. A total of 192 reconstructions were obtained, including various tube voltages (120-150 kV), tin filtering, and slice thicknesses (0.2-0.6 mm). For each scanner, multiple reconstruction kernels were applied. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) for bone-to-soft-tissue were calculated. Two radiologists independently assessed anatomy, implant visibility, and overall image quality on a 5-point Likert scale and scored diagnostic confidence for detecting anatomic dehiscence.
RESULTS: PCD-CT showed significantly higher image quality scores across implant, anatomy, and general image quality compared to the Edge and Force (p < 0.001). PCD-CT also produced significantly higher CNR (mean 23.5 vs. 13.8 [Edge] and 12.7 [Force]) and greater diagnostic confidence. For PCD-CT, optimal image quality was achieved using 0.2 mm slice thickness and the Hr89 kernel at 140 kV. PCD-CT scans acquired with half dose (27.5 mGy) showed no significant difference in CNRs but led to slightly lower subjective scores compared to standard-dose imaging.
CONCLUSION: PCD-CT provides superior image quality and diagnostic confidence in cochlear implant imaging compared to the Edge and Force. Optimal results are achieved using 140 kV, 0.2 mm slices, and the Hr89 kernel. Although dose reduction is feasible, it slightly compromises subjective image quality.