A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Diagnostic usefulness of cone-beam computed tomography versus multi-detector computed tomography for sinonasal structure evaluation. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a promising imaging modality for sinonasal evaluation, with advantages of relatively low radiation dose, low cost, and quick outpatient imaging. Our study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance and image quality of CBCT with those of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) with different slice thickness.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 60 consecutive patients who had undergone both CBCT and MDCT. MDCT images was reconstructed with 1 and 3 mm slice thickness. The quantitative image quality parameters (image noise, signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], and contrast-to noise ratio [CNR] were calculated and compared between the two imaging modalities. Two observers (ENT surgeon and neuroradiologist) evaluated the presence of seven sinonasal anatomic variations in each patient and interobserver agreements were analyzed. The diagnostic performance of CBCT (0.3 mm) and MDCT (3 mm) was assessed and compared with that of high resolution MDCT (1 mm), which is considered as the gold standard.

Results: The image noise was significantly higher and SNR and CNR values were lower in the CBCT (0.3 mm) group than in the MDCT groups (1 and 3 mm). The diagnostic performance of CBCT (0.3 mm) was similar to that of MDCT (1 mm) and superior to that of MDCT (3 mm). The highest interobserver agreement was for high resolution MDCT (1 mm), followed by CBCT (0.3 mm), and MDCT (3 mm).

Conclusion: Considering its low radiation dose, low cost, and ease of clinical access, CBCT may be a useful imaging modality for as first line sinonasal evaluation and repeated follow up.Study design: Retrospective study in a tertiary referral university center.Level of evidence: NA.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195011PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.792DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

computed tomography
16
cbct 03 mm
16
diagnostic performance
12
03 mm mdct
12
mdct 1 mm
12
mdct
10
cone-beam computed
8
multi-detector computed
8
cbct
8
imaging modality
8

Similar Publications