Literature DB >> 11687682

Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film, computed, and CT scanned projection radiography: applications to CT urography.

C H McCollough1, M R Bruesewitz, T J Vrtiska, B F King, A J LeRoy, J P Quam, R R Hattery.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate image quality and dose for abdominal imaging techniques that could be used as part of a computed tomographic (CT) urographic examination: screen-film (S-F) radiography or computed radiography (CR), performed with moving and stationary grids, and CT scanned projection radiography (CT SPR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An image quality phantom underwent imaging with moving and stationary grids with both a clinical S-F combination and CR plate. CT SPR was performed with six CT scanners at various milliampere second and kilovolt peak settings. Entrance skin exposure (ESE); spatial, contrast, and temporal resolutions; geometric accuracy; and artifacts were assessed.
RESULTS: S-F or CR images, with either grid, provided image quality equivalent to that with the clinical standard, S-F with a moving grid. ESE values for both S-F and CR were 435 mR (112.2 microC/kg [1 mR = 0.258 microC/kg]) with a moving grid and 226 mR (58.3 microC/kg) with a stationary grid. All CT SPR images provided inferior spatial resolution compared with S-F or CR images. High-contrast objects generated substantial artifacts on CT SPR images. Compared with S-F, CR and CT SPR provided improved resolution of small low-contrast objects. The contrast between iodine and soft-tissue-mimicking structures on CT SPR images acquired at 80 kVp was twice that at 120 kVp. CT SPR images with acceptable noise levels required a midline ESE value of approximately 300 mR (77.4 microC/kg) at 80 kVp.
CONCLUSION: S-F and CR provided better spatial resolution than did CT SPR. However, CT SPR provided improved low-contrast resolution compared with S-F, at exposures comparable to those used for S-F or CR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11687682     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2212000784

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 in total

1.  Improved pelvicalyceal visualization with multidetector computed tomography urography; comparison with helical computed tomography.

Authors:  V Raptopoulos; A McNamara
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-03-11       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The gold standard: PACS alchemy and the gold standard.

Authors:  Kenneth Burgess; Thomas L Slovis
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2004-10-23

Review 3.  [Multislice CT urography Aspects for technical management and clinical application].

Authors:  J Kemper; G Adam; C Nolte-Ernsting
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Dose reduction in multidetector CT of the urinary tract. Studies in a phantom model.

Authors:  E Coppenrath; T Meindl; P Herzog; R Khalil; U Mueller-Lisse; L Krenn; M Reiser; U G Mueller-Lisse
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: Many roads lead to Rome.

Authors:  Claus Nolte-Ernsting; Nigel Cowan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-09-05       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Renal Collecting System Anatomy in Living Kidney Donors by Computed Tomographic Urography: Protocol Accuracy Compared to Intravenous Pyelographic and Surgical Findings.

Authors:  Mohammad Kazem Tarzamni; Nariman Nezami; Afshar Zomorrodi; Samad Fathi-Noroozlou; Reza Piri; Mohammad Naghavi-Behzad; Mohammad Khalid Mojadidi; Bijan Bijan
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2016-01-28

7.  Indirect CT Venography at 80 kVp with Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction Compared to 120 kVp with Filtered Back Projection: Assessment of Image Quality and Radiation Dose.

Authors:  Inyoung Song; Jeong Geun Yi; Jeong Hee Park; Sung Min Ko
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.