Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 12/2016

01-12-2016 | Computed Tomography

Visualisation of passive middle ear implants by cone beam and multi-detector computed tomography: a comparative in vitro study

Authors: T. D. Nguyen, S. Kösling, R. Mlynski, S. K. Plontke

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Modern passive middle ear titanium prostheses are filigree structures, resulting in poorer depiction on CT compared to prostheses used in the past. We compared the visibility of newer prostheses on cone beam CT (CBCT) to multi-detector CT (MDCT) with standard and lower dose in vitro, and analysed image noise and metal artefacts.

Methods

Six different titanium middle ear prostheses (three partial and one total ossicular replacement prostheses, two stapes prostheses) were implanted twice in formalin-fixed head specimens—first correctly and then with displacement. Imaging was performed using standard CBCT and MDCT as well as MDCT with lower dose (36 single imaging investigations). Images were analysed with knowledge of the used types of middle ear prostheses, but blinded with respect to the positioning in the specific case.

Results

On all images the type of prostheses and their positions could be clearly recognized. Their identifiability including their details was rated as statistically significantly higher for all CBCT investigations than for MDCT. MDCT with lower dose showed the worst results. No statistical differences were found in image noise and metal artefacts.

Conclusions

If available, CBCT should be preferred over MDCT in diagnostic evaluation of passive middle ear prostheses.

Key Points

• Middle ear prostheses became more filigree, leading to poorer visibility on CT.
• High spatial resolution and paraxial reconstructions are necessary requirements for imaging evaluation.
• CBCT and MDCT can identify type and positioning of titanium prostheses.
• Metal artefacts play a minor part in filigree titanium prostheses.
• Regarding visualisation of prostheses details, cone beam CT aids the evaluation.
Literature
1.
Kösling S, Bootz F (2001) CT and MR imaging after middle ear surgery. Eur J Radiol 40(2):113–118CrossRefPubMed
2.
Beutner D, Hüttenbrink KB (2009) Passive and active middle ear implants. Laryngorhinootologie 88(Suppl 1):32–47CrossRef
3.
Jargalkhuu E, Erdenechuluun B, Mlynski R, Hagen R (2009) Middle ear surgery in Mongolia-first results with middle ear prostheses. Laryngorhinootologie 88(6):387–391CrossRefPubMed
4.
Shah KD, Bradoo RA, Joshi AA, Sapkale DD (2013) The efficiency of titanium middle ear prosthesis in ossicular chain reconstruction: our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 65(4):298–301CrossRefPubMed
5.
Quesnel S, Teissier N, Viala P, Couloigner V, Van Den Abbeele T (2010) Long term results of ossiculoplasties with partial and total titanium Vario Kurz prostheses in children. Int J Pedriatr Otorhinolaryngol 74(11):1226–1229CrossRef
6.
Hahn Y, Bojrab DI (2013) Outcomes following ossicular chain reconstruction with composite prostheses: hydroxyapatite-polyethylene vs. hydroxyapatite-titanium. Ear Nose Throat J 92(6):250, 252, 254, 256, 258, 260
7.
Mardassi A, Deveze A, Sanjuan M et al (2011) Titanium ossicular chain replacement protheses: prognostic factors and preliminary functional results. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 128(2):53–58CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Aschendorff A et al (2007) Rotational tomography of the normal and reconstructed middle ear in temporal bones: an experimental study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264(4):345–351CrossRefPubMed
10.
Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Merchant SN et al (2010) Experimental investigation of rotational tomography in reconstructed middle ears with clinical implications. Hear Res 263(1-2):191–197CrossRefPubMed
11.
Bozzato A, Struffert T, Hertel V, Iro H, Hornung J (2010) Analysis of the accuracy of high-resolution computed tomography techniques for the measurement of stapes prostheses. Eur Radiol 20(3):566–571CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zaoui K, Kromeier J, Neudert M et al (2014) Clinical investigation of flat panel Ct following middle ear reconstruction: a study of 107 patients. Eur Radiol 24(3):587–594CrossRefPubMed
13.
De Cock J, Zanca F, Canning J, Pauwels R, Hermans R (2015) A comparative study for image quality and radiation dose of a cone beam computed tomography scanner and a multislice computed tomography scanner for paranasal sinus imaging. Eur Radiol 25(7):1891–1900CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hofmann E, Schmidt M, Sedlmair M, Banckwitz R, Hirschfelder U, Lell M (2014) Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography—an in-vitro investigation. Clin Oral Invest 18(1):301–311CrossRef
15.
Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V et al (2010) Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med 115(4):600–611CrossRefPubMed
16.
Bremke M, Lüers JC, Stenner M et al (2013) Radiologic examinations in human temporal bone specimens using digital volume tomography and high-resolution computed tomography after implantation of middle ear prosthesis and cochlear implant electrode array. Otol Neurotol 34(7):1321–1328CrossRefPubMed
17.
Teymoortash A, Hamzei S, Murthum T, Eivazi B, Kureck I, Werner JA (2011) Temporal bone imaging using digital volume tomography and computed tomography: a comparative cadaveric radiological study. Surg Radiol Anat 33(2):123–128CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Pein MK, Brandt S, Plontke SK, Kösling S (2014) Visualisation of subtle temporal bone structures. Comparison of cone beam CT and MDCT. Radiologe 54(3):271–278CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lane JI, Lindell EP, Witte RJ, DeLone DR, Driscoll CL (2006) Middle ear and inner ear: improved depiction with multiplanar reconstruction of volumetric CT data. Radiographics 26(1):115–124CrossRefPubMed
21.
Dastidar P, Pertti R, Karhuketo T (1997) Axial HRCT, two-dimensional and maximum intensity projection reconstructions in temporal bone lesions. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 529:43–46CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mehanna AM, Baki FA, Eid M, Negm M (2014) Comparison of different computed tomography post-processing modalities in assessment of various middle ear disorders. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. doi:10.​1007/​s00405-014-2920-y PubMed
23.
Knörgen M, Brandt S, Kösling S (2012) Comparison of quality on digital X-ray devices with 3D-capacity for ENT-clinical objectives in imaging of temporal bone and paranasal sinuses. Röfo 184(12):1153–1160PubMed
24.
Peltonen LI, Aarnisalo AA, Kortesniemi MK, Suomalainen A, Jero J, Robinson S (2007) Limited cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the middle ear: a comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Acta Radiol 48(2):207–212CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W (2011) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Röfo 183(2):144–153PubMed
26.
Mlynski R, Nguyen TD, Plontke SK, Kösling S (2014) Presentation of floating mass transducer and vibroplasty couplers on CT and cone beam CT. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(4):665–672CrossRefPubMed
27.
Granström G, Gröndahl HG (2011) Imaging of osseointegrated implants in the temporal bone by Accuitomo 3-dimensional cone beam computed tomography. Otol Neurotol 32(2):199–203CrossRefPubMed
28.
Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassam B et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 75(2):265–269CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Visualisation of passive middle ear implants by cone beam and multi-detector computed tomography: a comparative in vitro study
Authors
T. D. Nguyen
S. Kösling
R. Mlynski
S. K. Plontke
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4312-8

Other articles of this Issue 12/2016

European Radiology 12/2016 Go to the issue

Neuro

Relationship between leukoaraiosis, carotid intima-media thickness and intima-media thickness variability: Preliminary results

Chest

Submillisievert CT using model-based iterative reconstruction with lung-specific setting: An initial phantom study

Musculoskeletal

Adipose tissue and muscle attenuation as novel biomarkers predicting mortality in patients with extremity sarcomas

Urogenital

68Ga-PSMA I&T PET/CT for assessment of prostate cancer: evaluation of image quality after forced diuresis and delayed imaging

Interventional

Simultaneous trans-hepatic portal and hepatic vein embolization before major hepatectomy: the liver venous deprivation technique

Magnetic Resonance

Magnetic resonance angiography of fetal vasculature at 3.0 T