Leng, Shuai

Abstract 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 five 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 0.2mm and 0.4mm, respectively. Eighteen cases (9 prostheses, 2 positions) per scanner were evaluated by two 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%; 55.6%-91.7%), p = 0.500; medial contact, 30/36 (83.3%; 55.6%-94.4%) vs. 26/36 (72.2%; 50.0%-83.3%), p = 0.250. PCD-CT identified all cases of complete contact loss (score 3), while EID-CT missed one reading per contact. Inter-reader agreement may be higher with PCD-CT vs EID-CT (lateral: κw: 0.804 [0.578-0.941] vs. 0.571 [0.302-0.778], p = 0.250; medial: 0.684 [0.191-0.934] vs. 0.481 [0.024-0.835], p = 0.250). Reader confidence was significantly higher with PCD-CT; mean paired differences for Readers 1 and 2 were 9.4 (1.8-17.1; Holm-adjusted p = 0.019) and 23.1 points (13.4-32.7; p < 0.001) for lateral contact, and 16.4 (10.0-22.8; p < 0.001) and 17.8 points (6.8-28.8; p = 0.007) for medial contact. Readers preferred PCD-CT image quality in 16/18 (88.9%; 65.3%-98.6%) and 17/18 cases (94.4%; 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 PCD-CT is a promising modality for postoperative middle ear evaluations that warrants further investigations.

Abstract Photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) directly detects individual photons and measures their energies, enabling the acquisition of multi-energy data from a single x-ray source with higher spatial resolution, thereby allowing visualization of smaller arteries and veins and other important imaging features not seen at conventional CT. It also substantially reduces calcium and stent blooming artifacts. Appropriate patient selection and task-based optimization of acquisition, reconstruction, and interpretation are critical to realize these benefits. Vascular imaging examinations for which early evidence shows that PCD-CT demonstrates higher diagnostic performance compared to conventional CT include coronary CT angiography (CTA) for evaluation of partially calcified plaques or stents, peripheral runoff CTA, detection of cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistulas, and head CTA for evaluation of small intracranial vessels and aneurysms. Current limitations include excessive image noise with the sharpest reconstruction kernels and challenges when adapting conventional CT protocols (eg, requiring sharper kernels, thinner slices, higher matrices, tailored scan modes) to achieve time-efficient image reconstruction and hanging protocols. New solutions and directions will include deep-learning-based image noise reduction, improved spectral separation, strategic triage of specific patient populations to PCD-CT systems, and subspecialty clinical practice recommendations for this new technology.