ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Photon-counting CT: image quality evaluation in patients with tibial plateau fracture treated with metallic osteosynthesis material.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to compare the image quality of photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) and energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) in patients with tibial plateau fractures treated with metallic osteosynthesis material, and to identify optimal reconstruction parameters for PCD-CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter ethical approval, twelve patients underwent PCD-CT and EID-CT scans. Images were reconstructed using bone and soft-tissue kernels with metal artifact reduction (iMAR). PCD-CT virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) at 70, 110, and 150 keV were generated. Five radiologists assessed metal artifact severity and bone and soft-tissue visualization using a 7-point Likert scale. Visual grading characteristics analysis was performed. Noise levels were quantified and compared using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.
resultsEID-CT was rated superior in reducing metal-artifact streaks (AUC: 0.10-0.21). No significant difference was found between EID-CT iMAR and PCD-CT VMI at 110 keV and 150 keV (AUC: 0.40-0.49) concerning the metal-bone interface. An ultra-high-resolution PCD-CT kernel outperformed its EID-CT counterpart in bone visualization, with AUC values of 0.67-0.92 across all bone criteria, including those incorporating artifact-affected regions. PCD-CT showed lower noise.
conclusionMetal artifact reduction was superior in EID-CT iMAR images compared to PCD-CT iMAR and VMI 110/150 keV, except at the metal-bone interface, where EID-CT iMAR images and PCD-CT VMI 110/150 keV performed comparably. The ultra-high-resolution PCD-CT kernel provided the best bone visualization, even when artifact-affected areas were included. Noise levels were lower in PCD-CT. This is the first in vivo comparison of photon-counting and energy-integrating CT for postoperative knee imaging with metallic osteosynthesis material. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: These findings highlight the need for improved metal artifact reduction in PCD‑CT, while demonstrating superior bone visualization, and support a complementary interpretation strategy in postoperative knees using high‑energy VMI and MAR‑corrected reconstructions. KEY POINTS: Photon-counting CT demonstrated excellent bone visualization. Conventional EID-CT achieved better metal artifact reduction than photon-counting CT. The metal-bone interface was rated similarly for energy-integrating CT and photon-counting CT virtual monoenergetic images. These findings indicate that further improvements in metal artifact reduction algorithms for PCD-CT are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.