Radiology advances · 2026
Improved visualization of malpositioned middle ear prostheses using photon-counting detector CT: a cadaver study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sadeghian Maryam, Benson John C, Farnsworth Paul J, Lane John I, Treb Kevin J, Khandalavala Karl R, Babajanian Eric E, Bruesewitz Michael R, Swicklik Joseph R, Ou Fang-Shu, McCollough Cynthia H, Carlson Matthew L, Leng Shuai
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of middle ear prostheses requires high-resolution imaging to assess position and structural integrity.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of photon-counting-detector (PCD)-CT for middle ear prosthesis imaging in cadaveric specimens.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine different middle ear prostheses were implanted in 5 fresh-frozen whole-head specimens, both in correct anatomic position and displaced to mimic malposition. Specimens were scanned on PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha, Siemens) and energy-integrating-detector (EID)-CT (SOMATOM Force, Siemens), reconstructed at 0.2 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively. Eighteen cases (9 prostheses, 2 positions) per scanner were evaluated by 2 neuroradiologists (36 readings), blinded to scanner and position, who scored prosthesis position, reader confidence, and overall image quality. Agreement with the reference standard and between readers was compared.
RESULTS: PCD-CT showed higher diagnostic confidence compared with EID-CT, while accuracy and inter-reader agreement did not demonstrate significant differences between scanners. Correct readings, PCD-CT versus EID-CT: lateral contact, 31/36 (86.1%; 95% CI, 58.3-94.4) vs 29/36 (80.6%; 95% CI, 55.6-91.7), P = .500; medial contact, 30/36 (83.3%; 95% CI, 55.6-94.4) vs 26/36 (72.2%; 95% CI, 50.0-83.3), P = .250. PCD-CT identified all cases of complete contact loss (score 3), while EID-CT missed 1 reading per contact. Inter-reader agreement may be higher with PCD-CT vs EID-CT (lateral: κw: 0.804 [95% CI, 0.578-0.941] vs 0.571 [95% CI, 0.302-0.778], P = .250; medial: 0.684 [95% CI, 0.191-0.934] vs 0.481 [95% CI, 0.024-0.835], P = .250). Reader confidence was significantly higher with PCD-CT; mean paired differences for Readers 1 and 2 were 9.4 (95% CI, 1.8-17.1; Holm-adjusted P = .019) and 23.1 points (95% CI, 13.4-32.7; P < .001) for lateral contact, and 16.4 (95% CI, 10.0-22.8; P < .001) and 17.8 points (95% CI, 6.8-28.8; P = .007) for medial contact. Readers preferred PCD-CT image quality in 16/18 (88.9%; 95% CI, 65.3-98.6) and 17/18 cases (94.4%; 95% CI, 72.7-99.9), respectively.
CONCLUSION: PCD-CT was associated with significantly higher reader confidence and preferred image quality, without significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or inter-reader agreement. These findings suggest that PCD-CT is a promising modality for postoperative middle ear evaluations and warrants further investigations.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of photon-counting-detector (PCD)-CT for middle ear prosthesis imaging in cadaveric specimens.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine different middle ear prostheses were implanted in 5 fresh-frozen whole-head specimens, both in correct anatomic position and displaced to mimic malposition. Specimens were scanned on PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha, Siemens) and energy-integrating-detector (EID)-CT (SOMATOM Force, Siemens), reconstructed at 0.2 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively. Eighteen cases (9 prostheses, 2 positions) per scanner were evaluated by 2 neuroradiologists (36 readings), blinded to scanner and position, who scored prosthesis position, reader confidence, and overall image quality. Agreement with the reference standard and between readers was compared.
RESULTS: PCD-CT showed higher diagnostic confidence compared with EID-CT, while accuracy and inter-reader agreement did not demonstrate significant differences between scanners. Correct readings, PCD-CT versus EID-CT: lateral contact, 31/36 (86.1%; 95% CI, 58.3-94.4) vs 29/36 (80.6%; 95% CI, 55.6-91.7), P = .500; medial contact, 30/36 (83.3%; 95% CI, 55.6-94.4) vs 26/36 (72.2%; 95% CI, 50.0-83.3), P = .250. PCD-CT identified all cases of complete contact loss (score 3), while EID-CT missed 1 reading per contact. Inter-reader agreement may be higher with PCD-CT vs EID-CT (lateral: κw: 0.804 [95% CI, 0.578-0.941] vs 0.571 [95% CI, 0.302-0.778], P = .250; medial: 0.684 [95% CI, 0.191-0.934] vs 0.481 [95% CI, 0.024-0.835], P = .250). Reader confidence was significantly higher with PCD-CT; mean paired differences for Readers 1 and 2 were 9.4 (95% CI, 1.8-17.1; Holm-adjusted P = .019) and 23.1 points (95% CI, 13.4-32.7; P < .001) for lateral contact, and 16.4 (95% CI, 10.0-22.8; P < .001) and 17.8 points (95% CI, 6.8-28.8; P = .007) for medial contact. Readers preferred PCD-CT image quality in 16/18 (88.9%; 95% CI, 65.3-98.6) and 17/18 cases (94.4%; 95% CI, 72.7-99.9), respectively.
CONCLUSION: PCD-CT was associated with significantly higher reader confidence and preferred image quality, without significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or inter-reader agreement. These findings suggest that PCD-CT is a promising modality for postoperative middle ear evaluations and warrants further investigations.