Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2022; 83(05): 470-475
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741006
Original Article

High-Resolution CT Imaging of the Temporal Bone: A Cadaveric Specimen Study

Nancy Pham
1   Department of Radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Osama Raslan
2   Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States
,
Edward B. Strong
3   Department of Otolaryngology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States
,
John Boone
2   Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States
,
Arthur Dublin
2   Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States
,
Shuai Chen
4   Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States
,
Lotfi Hacein-Bey
2   Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Super-high and ultra-high spatial resolution computed tomography (CT) imaging can be advantageous for detecting temporal bone pathology and guiding treatment strategies.

Methods Six temporal bone cadaveric specimens were used to evaluate the temporal bone microanatomic structures utilizing the following CT reconstruction modes: normal resolution (NR, 0.5-mm slice thickness, 5122 matrix), high resolution (HR, 0.5-mm slice thickness, 1,0242 matrix), super-high resolution (SHR, 0.25-mm slice thickness, 1,0242 matrix), and ultra-high resolution (UHR, 0.25-mm slice thickness, 2,0482 matrix). Noise and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for bone and air were measured at each reconstruction mode. Two observers assessed visualization of seven small anatomic structures using a 4-point scale at each reconstruction mode.

Results Noise was significantly higher and SNR significantly lower with increases in spatial resolution (NR, HR, and SHR). There was no statistical difference between SHR and UHR imaging with regard to noise and SNR. There was significantly improved visibility of all temporal bone osseous structures of interest with SHR and UHR imaging relative to NR imaging (p < 0.001) and most of the temporal bone osseous structures relative to HR imaging. There was no statistical difference in the subjective image quality between SHR and UHR imaging of the temporal bone (p ≥ 0.085).

Conclusion Super-high-resolution and ultra-high-resolution CT imaging results in significant improvement in image quality compared with normal-resolution and high-resolution CT imaging of the temporal bone. This preliminary study also demonstrates equivalency between super-high and ultra-high spatial resolution temporal bone CT imaging protocols for clinical use.

Keywords

CT - temporal bone - ultra-high resolution - super-high resolution


Publication History

Received: 19 January 2021

Accepted: 12 November 2021

Article published online:
31 January 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Jäger L, Bonell H, Liebl M. et al. CT of the normal temporal bone: comparison of multi- and single-detector row CT. Radiology 2005; 235 (01) 133-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Koesling S, Kunkel P, Schul T. Vascular anomalies, sutures and small canals of the temporal bone on axial CT. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54 (03) 335-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bartling SH, Gupta R, Torkos A. et al. Flat-panel volume computed tomography for cochlear implant electrode array examination in isolated temporal bone specimens. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27 (04) 491-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gleeson TG, Lacy PD, Bresnihan M, Gaffney R, Brennan P, Viani L. High resolution computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative assessment of cochlear implant patients. J Laryngol Otol 2003; 117 (09) 692-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kahn JB, Stewart MG, Diaz-Marchan PJ. Acute temporal bone trauma: utility of high-resolution computed tomography. Am J Otol 2000; 21 (05) 743-752
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stone JA, Castillo M, Neelon B, Mukherji SK. Evaluation of CSF leaks: high-resolution CT compared with contrast-enhanced CT and radionuclide cisternography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999; 20 (04) 706-712
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yamashita K, Yoshiura T, Hiwatashi A. et al. The radiological diagnosis of fenestral otosclerosis: the utility of histogram analysis using multidetector row CT. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 271 (12) 3277-3282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Yamashita K, Yoshiura T, Hiwatashi A. et al. Contributing factors in the pathogenesis of acquired cholesteatoma: size analysis based on MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (05) 1172-1175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Yiin RS, Tang PH, Tan TY. Review of congenital inner ear abnormalities on CT temporal bone. Br J Radiol 2011; 84 (1005): 859-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yuen HY, Ahuja AT, Wong KT, Yue V, van Hasselt AC. Computed tomography of common congenital lesions of the temporal bone. Clin Radiol 2003; 58 (09) 687-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fatterpekar GM, Doshi AH, Dugar M, Delman BN, Naidich TP, Som PM. Role of 3D CT in the evaluation of the temporal bone. Radiographics 2006; 26 (1, Suppl 1): S117-S132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yamashita K, Hiwatashi A, Togao O. et al. Ultrahigh-resolution CT scan of the temporal bone. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 275 (11) 2797-2803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hiraumi H, Obara M, Yoshioka K, Ehara S, Sato H. Detectability of minute temporal bone structures with ultra-high resolution CT. Auris Nasus Larynx 2019; 46 (06) 830-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Süss C, Schmidt B, Primak AN, McCollough CH. Novel ultrahigh resolution data acquisition and image reconstruction for multi-detector row CT. Med Phys 2007; 34 (05) 1712-1723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 McCollough CH, Leng S, Sunnegardh J. et al. Spatial resolution improvement and dose reduction potential for inner ear CT imaging using a z-axis deconvolution technique. Med Phys 2013; 40 (06) 061904
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Raupach R. et al. Initial results of a new generation dual source CT system using only an in-plane comb filter for ultra-high resolution temporal bone imaging. Eur Radiol 2015; 25 (01) 178-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zhou W, Lane JI, Carlson ML. et al. Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging: a cadaveric study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018; 39 (09) 1733-1738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Leng S, Diehn FE, Lane JI. et al. Temporal bone CT: improved image quality and potential for decreased radiation dose using an ultra-high-resolution scan mode with an iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015; 36 (09) 1599-1603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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 (06) 1191-1205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kalender WA, Kyriakou Y. Flat-detector computed tomography (FD-CT). Eur Radiol 2007; 17 (11) 2767-2779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gupta R, Cheung AC, Bartling SH. et al. Flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, technology, and applications. Radiographics 2008; 28 (07) 2009-2022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ross W, Cody DD, Hazle JD. Design and performance characteristics of a digital flat-panel computed tomography system. Med Phys 2006; 33 (06) 1888-1901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Oostveen LJ, Boedeker KL, Brink M, Prokop M, de Lange F, Sechopoulos I. Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (05) 2552-2560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yanagawa M, Hata A, Honda O. et al. Subjective and objective comparisons of image quality between ultra-high-resolution CT and conventional area detector CT in phantoms and cadaveric human lungs. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (12) 5060-5068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hahn Y, Diaz R, Hartman J, Bobinski M, Brodie H. Assessing stapes piston position using computed tomography: a cadaveric study. Otol Neurotol 2009; 30 (02) 223-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wiet GJ, Stredney D, Powell K, Hittle B, Kerwin T. Integration of high-resolution data for temporal bone surgical simulations. Int J CARS 2016; 11 (10) 1845-1854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Arndt S, Kromeier J, Berlis A, Maier W, Laszig R, Aschendorff A. Imaging procedures after bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. Laryngoscope 2007; 117 (10) 1815-1818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Connor SEJ. Contemporary imaging of auditory implants. Clin Radiol 2018; 73 (01) 19-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rose AS, Webster CE, Harrysson OL, Formeister EJ, Rawal RB, Iseli CE. Pre-operative simulation of pediatric mastoid surgery with 3D-printed temporal bone models. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79 (05) 740-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hirsch JD, Vincent RL, Eisenman DJ. Surgical reconstruction of the ossicular chain with custom 3D printed ossicular prosthesis. 3D Print Med 2017; 3 (01) 7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A. et al. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics 2015; 35 (07) 1965-1988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ballard DH, Trace AP, Ali S. et al. Clinical applications of 3D printing: primer for radiologists. Acad Radiol 2018; 25 (01) 52-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar