OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality and radiation dose using Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASiR) and Filtered Back Projection (FBP) in patients weighing ≥ 91 kg. METHODS: In this Institution Review Board-approved retrospective study, single-phase contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations of 100 adults weighing ≥ 91 kg (mean body weight: 107.6 ± 17.4 kg range: 91-181.9 kg) with (1) ASiR and (2) FBP were reviewed by two readers in a blinded fashion for subjective measures of image quality (using a subjective standardized numerical scale and objective noise) and for radiation exposure. Imaging parameters and radiation dose results of the two techniques were compared within weight and BMI sub-categories. RESULTS: All examinations were found to be of adequate quality. Both subjective (mean = 1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6, P < 0.05) and objective noise (13.0 ± 3.2 vs.19.5 ± 5.7, P < 0.0001) were lower with ASiR. Average radiation dose reduction of 31.5 % was achieved using ASiR (mean CTDIvol. ASiR: 13.5 ± 7.3 mGy; FBP: 19.7 ± 9.0 mGy, P < 0.0001). Other measures of image quality were comparable between the two techniques. Trends for all parameters were similar in patients across weight and BMI sub-categories. CONCLUSION: In obese individuals, abdominal CT images reconstructed using ASiR provide diagnostic images with reduced image noise at lower radiation dose. KEY POINTS: • CT images in obese adults are noisy, even with high radiation dose. • Newer iterative reconstruction techniques have theoretical advantages in obese patients. • Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction should reduce image noise and radiation dose. • This has been proven in abdominopelvic CT images of obese patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality and radiation dose using Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASiR) and Filtered Back Projection (FBP) in patients weighing ≥ 91 kg. METHODS: In this Institution Review Board-approved retrospective study, single-phase contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations of 100 adults weighing ≥ 91 kg (mean body weight: 107.6 ± 17.4 kg range: 91-181.9 kg) with (1) ASiR and (2) FBP were reviewed by two readers in a blinded fashion for subjective measures of image quality (using a subjective standardized numerical scale and objective noise) and for radiation exposure. Imaging parameters and radiation dose results of the two techniques were compared within weight and BMI sub-categories. RESULTS: All examinations were found to be of adequate quality. Both subjective (mean = 1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6, P < 0.05) and objective noise (13.0 ± 3.2 vs.19.5 ± 5.7, P < 0.0001) were lower with ASiR. Average radiation dose reduction of 31.5 % was achieved using ASiR (mean CTDIvol. ASiR: 13.5 ± 7.3 mGy; FBP: 19.7 ± 9.0 mGy, P < 0.0001). Other measures of image quality were comparable between the two techniques. Trends for all parameters were similar in patients across weight and BMI sub-categories. CONCLUSION: In obese individuals, abdominal CT images reconstructed using ASiR provide diagnostic images with reduced image noise at lower radiation dose. KEY POINTS: • CT images in obese adults are noisy, even with high radiation dose. • Newer iterative reconstruction techniques have theoretical advantages in obesepatients. • Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction should reduce image noise and radiation dose. • This has been proven in abdominopelvic CT images of obesepatients.
Authors: Priyanka Prakash; Mannudeep K Kalra; Avinash K Kambadakone; Homer Pien; Jiang Hsieh; Michael A Blake; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Konstantinos P Letsas; Claudia Herrera Siklódy; Panagiotis Korantzopoulos; Reinhold Weber; Gerd Bürkle; Constantinos C Mihas; Dietrich Kalusche; Thomas Arentz Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Raul N Uppot; Dushyant V Sahani; Peter F Hahn; Mannudeep K Kalra; Sanjay S Saini; Peter R Mueller Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-06-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Márcio Sommer Bittencourt; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Seltmann; Gerd Muschiol; Dieter Ropers; Werner Günther Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jiang Hsieh; Paul E Licato; Synho Do; Homer H Pien; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Viktor Haase; Katharina Hahn; Harald Schöndube; Karl Stierstorfer; Andreas Maier; Frédéric Noo Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Cathérine Gebhard; Tobias A Fuchs; Michael Fiechter; Julia Stehli; Barbara E Stähli; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Siobhan B O'Neill; Patrick D Mc Laughlin; Lee Crush; Owen J O'Connor; Sebastian R Mc Williams; Orla Craig; Anne Marie Mc Garrigle; Fiona O'Neill; Jackie Bye; Max F Ryan; Fergus Shanahan; Michael M Maher Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A Euler; T Heye; M Kekelidze; G Bongartz; Z Szucs-Farkas; C Sommer; B Schmidt; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315