BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bone-subtraction techniques have been shown to enhance CT angiography (CTA) interpretation, but motion can lead to incomplete bone removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate 2 novel registration techniques to compensate for patient motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients underwent bone-subtraction CTA (BSCTA) for the evaluation of the neck vessels with 64-section CT. We tested 3 different registration procedures: pure rigid registration (BSCTA), slab-based registration (SB-BSCTA), and a partially rigid registration (PR-BSCTA) approach. Subtraction quality for the assessment of different vascular segments was evaluated by 2 examiners in a blinded fashion. The Cohen kappa test was applied for interobserver variability, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test, for differences between the procedures. Motion between the corresponding datasets was measured and plotted against image-quality scores. RESULTS: Algorithms with motion compensation revealed higher image-quality scores (SB-BSCTA, mean 4.31; PR-BSCTA, mean 4.43) than pure rigid registration (BSCTA, mean 3.88). PR-BSCTA was rated superior to SB-BSCTA for the evaluation of the cervical internal and external carotid arteries (P<.001), whereas there was no significant difference for the other vessels (P=.157-.655). Both algorithms were clearly superior to pure rigid registration for all vessels except the basilar and ophthalmic artery. Interobserver agreement was high (kappa=0.46-0.98). CONCLUSION: Bone-subtraction algorithms with motion compensation provided higher image-quality scores than pure rigid registration methods, especially in cases with complex motion. PR-BSCTA was rated superior to SB-BSCTA in the visualization of the internal and external carotid arteries.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bone-subtraction techniques have been shown to enhance CT angiography (CTA) interpretation, but motion can lead to incomplete bone removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate 2 novel registration techniques to compensate for patient motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients underwent bone-subtraction CTA (BSCTA) for the evaluation of the neck vessels with 64-section CT. We tested 3 different registration procedures: pure rigid registration (BSCTA), slab-based registration (SB-BSCTA), and a partially rigid registration (PR-BSCTA) approach. Subtraction quality for the assessment of different vascular segments was evaluated by 2 examiners in a blinded fashion. The Cohen kappa test was applied for interobserver variability, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test, for differences between the procedures. Motion between the corresponding datasets was measured and plotted against image-quality scores. RESULTS: Algorithms with motion compensation revealed higher image-quality scores (SB-BSCTA, mean 4.31; PR-BSCTA, mean 4.43) than pure rigid registration (BSCTA, mean 3.88). PR-BSCTA was rated superior to SB-BSCTA for the evaluation of the cervical internal and external carotid arteries (P<.001), whereas there was no significant difference for the other vessels (P=.157-.655). Both algorithms were clearly superior to pure rigid registration for all vessels except the basilar and ophthalmic artery. Interobserver agreement was high (kappa=0.46-0.98). CONCLUSION: Bone-subtraction algorithms with motion compensation provided higher image-quality scores than pure rigid registration methods, especially in cases with complex motion. PR-BSCTA was rated superior to SB-BSCTA in the visualization of the internal and external carotid arteries.
Authors: Charles B L M Majoie; Marcel van Straten; Henk W Venema; Gerard J den Heeten Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Falk-Karsten Pohle; Dorette Raaz; Johannes von Erffa; Attila Yilmaz; Gerd Muschiol; Werner G Daniel Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-05-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Eduard Ghersin; Diana Litmanovich; Robert Dragu; Shmuel Rispler; Jonathan Lessick; Amos Ofer; Olga R Brook; Luis Gruberg; Rafael Beyar; Ahuva Engel Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J Pablo Villablanca; Reza Jahan; Parizad Hooshi; Silvester Lim; Gary Duckwiler; Aman Patel; James Sayre; Neil Martin; John Frazee; John Bentson; Fernando Viñuela Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C Kouskouras; A Charitanti; C Giavroglou; N Foroglou; P Selviaridis; V Kontopoulos; A S Dimitriadis Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Yu Chen; Huadan Xue; Zheng-yu Jin; Jie Zhang; Hao Sun; Xuan Wang; Zhu-hua Zhang; Da-ming Zhang; Guang-ming Lu; Zhao-qi Zhang; U Joseph Schoepf; Andreas M Bucher; Christopher D Wolla; Yun Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Moritz H Albrecht; Danilo Caudo; Silvio Mazziotti; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann; Simon Martin; Ibrahim Yel; Giorgio Ascenti; Vitali Koch; Giuseppe Cicero; Alfredo Blandino; Christian Booz Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2021-09-03