Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026

DUCT: Double Resin Casting followed by Micro-Computed Tomography for 3D Liver Analysis
Published on: September 28, 2021
Comparison of Different Slice Thicknesses in Computed Tomography for Labyrinthine Fistula Evaluation
Qiang Du1,2, Rujian Hong3, Yucheng Pan3
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Objectives:
The aim of the present study is to assess the impact of different slice thicknesses in computed tomography for labyrinthine fistula evaluation and to determine the appropriate slice thickness.
Methods:
A total of 258 patients who underwent mastoidectomy and tympanoplasty for chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma from 2010 to 2014 were reviewed. The radiological diagnoses were compared with intraoperative findings. Sensitivity and specificity of 2.0-, 1.5-, 1.0-, and 0.75-mm-thick computed tomographic (CT) images for the evaluation of labyrinthine fistulae were calculated. Cohen's κ coefficient was also calculated.
Results:
The sensitivities of 2.0-, 1.5-, 1.0-, and 0.75-mm-thick CT images for the evaluation of labyrinthine fistulae were 76.9, 86.5, 90.4, and 93.3% (observer 1) and 67.3, 76.0, 79.8, and 87.5% (observer 2), respectively. The specificities of 2.0-, 1.5-, 1.0-, and 0.75-mm-thick CT images for labyrinthine fistula evaluation were 96.1, 94.8, 95.5, and 95.5% (observer 1) and 99.4, 97.4, 95.5, and 94.8% (observer 2), respectively. Cohen's κ coefficients were 0.790, 0.788, 0.876, and 0.911 in 2.0-, 1.5-, 1.0-, and 0.75-mm-thick CT images, respectively.
Conclusions:
The sensitivity of CT for labyrinthine fistula evaluation increases with decreasing slice thickness, while the specificity does not improve.
More Related Videos
13:35Segmentation and Linear Measurement for Body Composition Analysis using Slice-O-Matic and Horos
Published on: March 21, 2021
06:33Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement
Published on: July 29, 2013