PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to compare the quality and noise of true non-enhanced (TNE) and virtual non-enhanced (VNE) images in patients undergoing dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) of the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients (mean age 54.7±19.9 years) prospectively underwent abdominal DECT to assess the liver using a triphasic protocol consisting of precontrast, arterial-phase and portal-phase acquisitions. Exclusion criteria were allergy to iodinated contrast material, impaired renal function and a body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m(2). The DE portal-phase acquisition was performed with automatic dose modulation (CARE Dose 4D). Nonionic iodinated contrast material (Iomeron 400) was administered at 0.625 gI/kg with a flow rate of 3.5 ml/s. Axial VNE images were reconstructed based on the portal data set using a collimation and an increment of 5 mm and were compared with TNE images reconstructed with the same parameters. The average image quality and noise were analysed by two radiologists in separate reading sessions. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in image quality was observed between VNE (4.00±0.85) and TNE images (4.35±0.58). A sufficient diagnostic quality was found in 95.0% (19/20) of VNE images and in 100% of TNE images. No statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was observed in the average image noise of VNE (9.5±0.7) and TNE (12.3±1.1) images. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal DECT allows acquisition of liver VNE images with similar image quality and lower noise than TNE. Nevertheless, a few technical limitations related to the small field of view of the second detector in patients with a high BMI and heterogeneous iodine subtraction restrict the application of this technique to selected patients only.
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to compare the quality and noise of true non-enhanced (TNE) and virtual non-enhanced (VNE) images in patients undergoing dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) of the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients (mean age 54.7±19.9 years) prospectively underwent abdominal DECT to assess the liver using a triphasic protocol consisting of precontrast, arterial-phase and portal-phase acquisitions. Exclusion criteria were allergy to iodinated contrast material, impaired renal function and a body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m(2). The DE portal-phase acquisition was performed with automatic dose modulation (CARE Dose 4D). Nonionic iodinated contrast material (Iomeron 400) was administered at 0.625 gI/kg with a flow rate of 3.5 ml/s. Axial VNE images were reconstructed based on the portal data set using a collimation and an increment of 5 mm and were compared with TNE images reconstructed with the same parameters. The average image quality and noise were analysed by two radiologists in separate reading sessions. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in image quality was observed between VNE (4.00±0.85) and TNE images (4.35±0.58). A sufficient diagnostic quality was found in 95.0% (19/20) of VNE images and in 100% of TNE images. No statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was observed in the average image noise of VNE (9.5±0.7) and TNE (12.3±1.1) images. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal DECT allows acquisition of liver VNE images with similar image quality and lower noise than TNE. Nevertheless, a few technical limitations related to the small field of view of the second detector in patients with a high BMI and heterogeneous iodine subtraction restrict the application of this technique to selected patients only.
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Bernhard Krauss; Martin Sedlmair; Michael Grasruck; Herbert Bruder; Dominik Morhard; Christian Fink; Sabine Weckbach; Miriam Lenhard; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Myrna C B Godoy; Ioannis Vlahos; Anno Graser; James Babb; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Macari Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas Pfammatter; Nicole Peter; Hans Scheffel; Mario Lachat; Bernhard Schmidt; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Thomas Schertler Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Golfieri; E Marini; A Bazzocchi; F Fusco; F Trevisani; C Sama; G Mazzella; S Cavuto; F Piscaglia; L Bolondi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: M Scialpi; L Volterrani; M A Mazzei; S Cappabianca; F Barberini; I Piscioli; L Brunese; L Lupattelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-07-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Hans Scheffel; Paul Stolzmann; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas Schertler; Lotus Desbiolles; Sebastian Leschka; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Sven F Thieme; Christoph R Becker; Marcus Hacker; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: A Barile; F Bruno; S Mariani; F Arrigoni; A Reginelli; M De Filippo; M Zappia; A Splendiani; E Di Cesare; C Masciocchi Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2017-02-13
Authors: A Barile; F Bruno; S Mariani; F Arrigoni; L Brunese; M Zappia; A Splendiani; E Di Cesare; C Masciocchi Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2017-02-14
Authors: M De Filippo; A Pesce; A Barile; D Borgia; M Zappia; A Romano; F Pogliacomi; M Verdano; A Pellegrini; K Johnson Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2017-02-06
Authors: A Splendiani; F D'Orazio; L Patriarca; F Arrigoni; F Caranci; P Fonio; L Brunese; A Barile; E Di Cesare; C Masciocchi Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2017-02-06
Authors: F Caranci; G Leone; L Ugga; E Cesarano; R Capasso; S Schipani; A Bianco; P Fonio; F Briganti; L Brunese Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2017-02-06