Background and Purpose To compare the performance of the photon‐counting detector (PCD)‐CT against a cutting‐edge energy‐integrated detector (EID)‐CT to visualize different segments of the chorda tympani nerve. Materials and Methods An IRB‐approved protocol prospectively enrolled patients for temporal bone CT on both EID‐CT and PCD‐CT scanners. Fellowship‐trained neuroradiologists compared visualization of chorda tympani segments on each scanner using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 indicating EID is far superior to PCD, 3 indicating they are equivalent, and 5 indicating PCD is far superior to EID). Scores were averaged across segments and tested using a one‐sample Wilcoxon signed‐rank test with a one‐sided alternative hypothesis. Results Forty temporal bones were evaluated. Average Likert scores for visualization of chorda tympani segments‐chorda tympani canal/proximal segment, middle ear/posterior tympanic segment, and petrotympanic fissure/distal segment‐ on the PCD compared to EID scanner were 4.2 (SD = 0.4), 4.4 (0.5), and 4 (0.0), respectively. The anterior tympanic segment of the chorda tympani was not well visualized on either platform or therefore not scored. PCD compared to the EID scanner had better overall performance (Median = 4.2, 95% CI: [4.1, 5.0], p ‐value < .001). Conclusion PCD‐CT improves visualization of the petrous and intratympanic chorda tympani nerve segments, chorda tympani canaliculus, and petrotympanic fissure compared to comparable EID‐CT examinations. The improved visualization of the chorda tympani is important for the characterization of middle ear pathology involving this structure and presurgical planning to determine the size of the facial recess for cochlear implantation and to estimate the risk of nerve injury.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joseph et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: