title: Comparison of 640-Slice Multidetector Computed Tomography Versus 32-Slice MDCT for Imaging of the Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis Lamina.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the efficacy of 640-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for detecting osteo-odonto laminar resorption in the osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) compared with the current standard 32-slice MDCT.
  
  
  METHODS
  Explanted OOKP laminae and bone-dentine fragments were scanned using 640-slice MDCT (Aquilion ONE; Toshiba) and 32-slice MDCT (LightSpeed Pro32; GE Healthcare). Pertinent comparisons including image quality, radiation dose, and scanning parameters were made.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Benefits of 640-slice MDCT over 32-slice MDCT were shown. Key comparisons of 640-slice MDCT versus 32-slice MDCT included the following: percentage difference and correlation coefficient between radiological and anatomical measurements, 1.35% versus 3.67% and 0.9961 versus 0.9882, respectively; dose-length product, 63.50 versus 70.26; rotation time, 0.175 seconds versus 1.000 seconds; and detector coverage width, 16 cm versus 2 cm.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Resorption of the osteo-odonto lamina after OOKP surgery can result in potentially sight-threatening complications, hence it warrants regular monitoring and timely intervention. MDCT remains the gold standard for radiological assessment of laminar resorption, which facilitates detection of subtle laminar changes earlier than the onset of clinical signs, thus indicating when preemptive measures can be taken. The 640-slice MDCT exhibits several advantages over traditional 32-slice MDCT. However, such benefits may not offset cost implications, except in rare cases, such as in young patients who might undergo years of radiation exposure.
authors.affiliation: *Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom; †Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom; ‡Department of Neuroradiology, Hurstwood Park Neurosciences Centre, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom; §Department of Radiology, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom; and ¶Tongdean Eye Clinic, Hove, East Sussex, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Joseph M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Norris
authors.forename: Lyudmila
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Kishikova
authors.forename: Venkata S
authors.initials: VS
authors.lastname: Avadhanam
authors.forename: Panos
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Koumellis
authors.forename: Ian S
authors.initials: IS
authors.lastname: Francis
authors.forename: Christopher S C
authors.initials: CS
authors.lastname: Liu
mesh_terms: D000539:Alveolar Process / Q000637:transplantation*; D001705:Bioprosthesis; D001862:Bone Resorption / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003316:Corneal Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D061330:Multidetector Computed Tomography / Q000295:instrumentation*; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000637:transplantation*; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000534:rehabilitation