Literature DB >> 18941074

Does dual-energy CT of lower-extremity tendons incur penalties in patient radiation exposure or reduced multiplanar reconstruction image quality?

Derek G Lohan1, Kambiz Motamedi, Kira Chow, Reza Habibi, Christoph Panknin, Stefan G Ruehm, Leanne L Seeger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the quality and radiation exposure of data acquired with dual-energy CT compared with single-energy MDCT in the depiction of lower-extremity tendons and to assess whether a dual-energy CT voltage exists at which the quality of tendon depiction is optimal. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eleven healthy volunteers and seven clinically referred patients (10 men, eight women; mean age, 43.1 years; range, 20-71 years) underwent conventional single-energy CT and dual-energy CT examinations of both lower extremities with a dual-source CT scanner. Dual-energy reconstructions were made at combined tube voltages approximating 86, 98, 110, 122, and 134 kVp. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on six tendons in each lower extremity, and the findings were compared with single-energy CT findings. The radiation dose involved was recorded in each case.
RESULTS: A trend toward increasing tendon attenuation was observed with increasing reconstructed tube voltage. The group of single-energy CT reconstructions proved significantly superior to each of the dual-energy CT reconstructions with regard to signal-to-noise ratio (F = 35.25, p < 0.0001) and contrast-to-noise ratio (F = 37.19, p < 0.0001), although interobserver agreement in subjective ranking was poor. Dual-energy CT had a significantly higher radiation dose (p < 0.05) than single-energy CT.
CONCLUSION: Dual-energy CT of lower-extremity tendons, irrespective of the reconstruction tube voltage chosen, yields multiplanar reformations inferior to those of single-energy CT with regard to signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios while involving significantly escalated patient exposure to ionizing radiation. Whether the tissue-differentiating promise of dual-energy CT is realized in future studies and warrants such concessions remains to be seen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18941074     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3624

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  5 in total

1.  Pilot multi-reader study demonstrating potential for dose reduction in dual energy hepatic CT using non-linear blending of mixed kV image datasets.

Authors:  Anja Apel; Joel G Fletcher; Jeff L Fidler; David M Hough; Lifeng Yu; Luis S Guimaraes; Matthias E Bellemann; Cynthia H McCollough; David R Holmes; Christian D Eusemann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Peering through the glare: using dual-energy CT to overcome the problem of metal artefacts in bone radiology.

Authors:  Tyler M Coupal; Paul I Mallinson; Patrick McLaughlin; Savvas Nicolaou; Peter L Munk; Hugue Ouellette
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Assessment of the diagnostic value of dual-energy CT and MRI in the detection of iatrogenically induced injuries of anterior cruciate ligament in a porcine model.

Authors:  S Fickert; M Niks; D J Dinter; M Hammer; S Weckbach; S O Schoenberg; L Lehmann; S Jochum
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Application of Computed Tomography Processed by Picture Archiving and Communication Systems in the Diagnosis of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture.

Authors:  Hai-Peng Xue; Xin-Wei Liu; Jing Tian; Bing Xie; Chao Yang; Hao Zhang; Da-Peng Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  The Utility of Dual Energy Computed Tomography in Musculoskeletal Imaging.

Authors:  Sachin Khanduri; Aakshit Goyal; Bhumika Singh; Mriganki Chaudhary; Tushar Sabharwal; Shreshtha Jain; Hritik Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2017-08-24
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.