Abstract
Abstract
Background
When postoperative multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) imaging of patients with craniosynostosis is used, it is usually performed a few days after surgery in a radiology department. This requires additional anesthesia for the patient. Recently, intraoperative mobile cone-beam CT (CBCT) devices have gained popularity for orthopedic and neurosurgical procedures, which allows postoperative CT imaging in the operating room.
Objective
This single-center retrospective study compared radiation dose and image quality of postoperative imaging performed using conventional MSCT scanners and O-arm CBCT.
Materials and methods
A total of 104 pediatric syndromic and non-syndromic patients who were operated on because of single- or multiple-suture craniosynostosis were included in this study. The mean volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) values of optimized craniosynostosis CT examinations (58 MSCT and 46 CBCT) were compared. Two surgeons evaluated the subjective image quality.
Results
CBCT resulted in significantly lower CTDIvol (up to 14%) and DLP (up to 33%) compared to MSCT. Multi-slice CT image quality was considered superior to CBCT scans. However, all scans were considered to be of sufficient quality for diagnosis.
Conclusion
The O-arm device allowed for an immediate postoperative CBCT examination in the operating theater using the same anesthesia induction. Radiation exposure was lower in CBCT compared to MSCT scans, thus further encouraging the use of O-arms. Cone-beam CT imaging with an O-arm is a feasible method for postoperative craniosynostosis imaging, yielding less anesthesia to patients, lower health costs and the possibility to immediately evaluate results of the surgical operation.
Funder
University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
Reference35 articles.
1. Twigg SR, Wilkie AO (2015) A genetic-pathophysiological framework for craniosynostosis. Am J Hum Genet 97:359–377
2. Kajdic N, Spazzapan P, Velnar T (2018) Craniosynostosis – recognition, clinical characteristics, and treatment. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 18:110–116
3. French LR, Jackson IT, Melton LJ 3rd (1990) A population-based study of craniosynostosis. J Clin Epidemiol 43:69–73
4. Boulet SL, Rasmussen SA, Honein MA (2008) A population-based study of craniosynostosis in metropolitan Atlanta, 1989–2003. Am J Med Genet A 146A:984–991
5. Cornelissen M, den Ottelander B, Rizopoulos D et al (2016) Increase of prevalence of craniosynostosis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 44:1273–1279