Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-ms8jb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-20T13:29:20.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of cone beam and multidetector scanner irradiation for ear imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2025

Anne-Line Mutschler Open the ORCID record for Anne-Line Mutschler [Opens in a new window] ,
Mathilde Diot-Vaschy ,
Eleonore Brumpt ,
Joackim Mahdjoub ,
Riham Altaisan  and
Laurent Tavernier
Anne-Line Mutschler*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Université Marie-et-Louis-Pasteur, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France
Mathilde Diot-Vaschy
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France
Eleonore Brumpt
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Université Marie-et-Louis-Pasteur, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France
Joackim Mahdjoub
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Université Marie-et-Louis-Pasteur, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France
Riham Altaisan
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
Laurent Tavernier
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Université Marie-et-Louis-Pasteur, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France
*
Corresponding author: Anne-Line Mutschler; Email: al.mutschler@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Temporal bone computed tomography delivers a relatively high radiation dose. Cone beam computed tomography could be a promising alternative, offering good performance with reduced radiation exposure. This study aimed to compare the irradiation during temporal bone imaging using computed tomography versus cone beam computed tomography.

Materials and methods

We conducted a single-centre prospective study evaluating dosimetric data collected from patients undergoing temporal bone imaging via computed tomography or cone beam computed tomography. Absorbed doses (milligrays) were measured using mini-dosimeters placed on key anatomical sites: eyes, ears, lower neck and pubic region, and compared between the two imaging modalities.

Results

CBCT significantly reduced radiation, with absorbed doses being two to six times lower than those observed with conventional computed tomography, depending on the measured sites.

Conclusion

Our findings align with existing literature, confirming the reduced irradiation with cone beam computed tomography in ear imaging. Further studies are warranted to evaluate image quality relative to radiation dose between the two techniques.

Keywords

cochlear implantcomputed tomographycone beamimaginginner earirradiationotologyradiology

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Anne-Line Mutschler takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Ruivo, J, Mermuys, K, Bacher, K, Kuhweide, R, Offeciers, E, Casselman, JW. Cone beam computed tomography, a low-dose imaging technique in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:299–303Google Scholar
Razafindranaly, V, Truy, E, Pialat, J-B, Martinon, A, Bourhis, M, Boublay, N, et al. Cone beam CT versus multislice CT: radiologic diagnostic agreement in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1246–54Google Scholar
Theunisse, HJ, Joemai, RMS, Maal, TJJ, Geleijns, J, Mylanus, EAM, Verbist, BM. Cone-beam CT versus multi-slice CT systems for postoperative imaging of cochlear implantation–a phantom study on image quality and radiation exposure using human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:592–9Google Scholar
Helal, RA, Jacob, R, Elshinnawy, MA, Othman, AI, Al-Dhamari, IM, Paulus, DW, et al. Cone-beam CT versus multidetector CT in postoperative cochlear implant imaging: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:362–7Google Scholar
Al-Okshi, A, Lindh, C, Salé, H, Gunnarsson, M, Rohlin, M. Effective dose of cone beam CT (CBCT) of the facial skeleton: a systematic review. Br J Radiol 2015;88:20140658Google Scholar
Nardi, C, Talamonti, C, Pallotta, S, Saletti, P, Calistri, L, Cordopatri, C, et al. Head and neck effective dose and quantitative assessment of image quality: a study to compare cone beam CT and multislice spiral CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46:20170030Google Scholar
Nardi, C, Salerno, S, Molteni, R, Occhipinti, M, Grazzini, G, Norberti, N, et al. Radiation dose in non-dental cone beam CT applications: a systematic review. Radiol Med 2018;123:765–77Google Scholar
Struffert, T, Hertel, V, Kyriakou, Y, Krause, J, Engelhorn, T, Schick, B, et al. Imaging of cochlear implant electrode array with flat-detector CT and conventional multislice CT: comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:443–52Google Scholar
Kemp, P, Stralen, JV, De Graaf, P, Berkhout, E, Horssen, PV, Merkus, P. Cone-beam CT compared to multi-slice CT for the diagnostic analysis of conductive hearing loss: a feasibility study. J Int Adv Otol 2020;16:222–6Google Scholar
Dahmani-Causse, M, Marx, M, Deguine, O, Fraysse, B, Lepage, B, Escudé, B. Morphologic examination of the temporal bone by cone beam computed tomography: comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2011;128:230–5Google Scholar
Programme des Nations Unies pour l’Environnement (PNUE). Radiation: Effets et Sources. In: Radiation: Effects and sources | UNEP - UN Environment Programme 2016.Google Scholar
Dierckx, D, Saldarriaga Vargas, C, Rogge, F, Lichtherte, S, Struelens, L. Dosimetric analysis of the use of CBCT in diagnostic radiology: sinus and middle ear. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2015;163:125–32Google Scholar
Faccioli, N, Barillari, M, Guariglia, S, Zivelonghi, E, Rizzotti, A, Cerini, R, et al. Radiation dose saving through the use of cone-beam CT in hearing-impaired patients. Radiol Med 2009;114:1308–18Google Scholar
Zou, J, Koivisto, J, Lähelmä, J, Aarnisalo, A, Wolff, J, Pyykkö, I. Imaging optimization of temporal bones with cochlear implant using a high-resolution cone beam CT and the corresponding effective dose. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2015;124:466–73Google Scholar
Teymoortash, A, Hamzei, S, Murthum, T, Eivazi, B, Kureck, I, Werner, JA. Temporal bone imaging using digital volume tomography and computed tomography: a comparative cadaveric radiological study. Surg Radiol Anat 2011;33:123–8Google Scholar
Pein, MK, Brandt, S, Plontke, SK, Kösling, S. [Visualization of subtle temporal bone structures. Comparison of cone beam CT and MDCT]. Radiologe 2014;54:271–8Google Scholar
Erovic, BM, Chan, HHL, Daly, MJ, Pothier, DD, Yu, E, Coulson, C, et al. Intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography and multi-slice computed tomography in temporal bone imaging for surgical treatment. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;150:107–14Google Scholar
Scarfe, WC, Farman, AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008;52:707–30Google Scholar
Liktor, B, Révész, P, Csomor, P, Gerlinger, I, Sziklai, I, Karosi, T. Diagnostic value of cone-beam CT in histologically confirmed otosclerosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2131–8Google Scholar
Redfors, YD, Gröndahl, HG, Hellgren, J, Lindfors, N, Nilsson, I, Möller, C. Otosclerosis: anatomy and pathology in the temporal bone assessed by multi-slice and cone-beam CT. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:922–7Google Scholar
Révész, P, Liktor, B, Liktor, B, Sziklai, I, Gerlinger, I, Karosi, T. Comparative analysis of preoperative diagnostic values of HRCT and CBCT in patients with histologically diagnosed otosclerotic stapes footplates. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:63–72Google Scholar