HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2351020895v1 235/1/133    most recent Submit a response View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jäger, L. Articles by Reiser, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jäger, L. Articles by Reiser, M.

CT of the Normal Temporal Bone: Comparison of Multi– and Single–Detector Row CT¹

¹ From the Institute of Clinical Radiology (L.J., H.B., M.L., M.R.), Department of Neurology (V.A.), and Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (M.H.), University of Munich, Klinikum Grosshadern, Marchioninistr 15, 81366 Munich, Germany; and Department of Biostatistics, Tulane University, New Orleans, La (S.S.). Received July 29, 2002; revision requested September 20; final revision received June 15, 2004; accepted July 7. Address correspondence to L.J. (e-mail: jaeger@ med.uni-muenchen.de).

PURPOSE: To evaluate multi– and single–detector row computed tomographic (CT) depiction of anatomic landmarks of temporal bone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. In 50 temporal bones, transverse and coronal single–detector row CT images were compared with transverse and reformatted coronal multi–detector row CT images obtained of additional 50 temporal bones. Two radiologists evaluated images. Visibility of 50 landmarks was scored with a five-point quality rating scale. Fisher exact test, statistics, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate imaging technique and landmark visibility.

RESULTS: In delineating landmarks, total interobserver agreement was higher (P < .001) for transverse multi– than for single–detector row CT images. In 60% of landmarks, interobserver agreement was higher (P < .001) for transverse multi– than for single–detector row CT images. In 20% of landmarks, there was no difference, and in another 20% of landmarks, interobserver agreement was higher (P < .01) for single–detector row CT. Total interobserver agreement was higher (P < .01) for coronal multi–detector row reformations than for coronal single–detector row images. In 58% of landmarks, interobserver agreement was higher (P < .001) for coronal multi–detector row reformations than for coronal single–detector row images, while there was no difference in 8%. In 34% of landmarks, interobserver agreement was higher (P < .001) for coronal single–detector row images. Frequency of detected landmarks was higher for transverse (82%) and coronal (88%) multi–detector row images than for corresponding single–detector row images. In 72% of landmarks, transverse multi–detector row images were (P < .05) superior to corresponding transverse single–detector row images in landmark delineation. In 56% of landmarks, reformatted coronal multi–detector row images were (P < .05) superior to coronal single–detector row images in landmark delineation.

CONCLUSION: Multi–detector row CT images, including reformations, better delineate temporal bone anatomy than do single–detector row CT images.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K Hashimoto, S Kawashima, S Kameoka, Y Akiyama, T Honjoya, K Ejima, and K Sawada Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 36(8): 465 - 471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Bartling, O Majdani, R Gupta, T Rodt, C Dullin, P. Fitzgerald, and H Becker Large scan field, high spatial resolution flat-panel detector based volumetric CT of the whole human skull base and for maxillofacial imaging Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., September 1, 2007; 36(6): 317 - 327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: