Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This review critiques the conventional reliance on "data completeness" in intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and argues for a shift towards "data sufficiency" that prioritizes task-specific image quality thresholds. By analyzing various clinical scenarios, the authors demonstrate that excessive data sampling can lead to diminishing returns in image quality while increasing radiation exposure and procedure time. The key finding is that acceptable approximation errors can still meet clinical decision-making needs, allowing for a more balanced approach to quality, time, and dose in imaging practices.
Rethinking intraoperative imaging from "data completeness" to "data sufficiency" could revolutionize how we balance image quality, procedure time, and radiation exposure in clinical settings.
Mobile C-arm cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been widely used for real-time intraoperative 3D imaging. However, current practice often mechanically applies the fan-beam CT criterion of"180{\deg} plus fan angle"in pursuit of"data completeness"in reconstruction. This review argues that, under the single circular trajectory of three-dimensional cone-beam geometry, complete data are mathematically unattainable; moreover, blindly increasing sampling may exacerbate the trade-off among intraoperative image quality (Q), imaging time (T), and radiation dose (D). Against this background, this review reframes the evaluation of intraoperative CBCT around"data sufficiency"rather than"data completeness."This perspective moves beyond the excessive pursuit of absolute mathematical and analytic accuracy, and instead emphasizes task-specific minimum image-quality thresholds required for clinical decision-making. By synthesizing evidence from multiple clinical scenarios, this review suggests that approximation errors can be acceptable when clinical decision-making requirements are satisfied, thereby achieving a Q-T-D balance.
