OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of a standard-dose (SD) and a low-dose (LD) cervical spine CT protocol using filtered back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty patients investigated by cervical spine CT were prospectively randomised into two groups: SD (120 kVp, 275 mAs) and LD (120 kVp, 150 mAs), both applying automatic tube current modulation. Data were reconstructed using both FBP and sinogram-affirmed IR. Image noise, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were measured. Two radiologists independently and blindly assessed the following anatomical structures at C3-C4 and C6-C7 levels, using a four-point scale: intervertebral disc, content of neural foramina and dural sac, ligaments, soft tissues and vertebrae. They subsequently rated overall image quality using a ten-point scale. RESULTS: For both protocols and at each disc level, IR significantly decreased image noise and increased SNR and CNR, compared with FBP. SNR and CNR were statistically equivalent in LD-IR and SD-FBP protocols. Regardless of the dose and disc level, the qualitative scores with IR compared with FBP, and with LD-IR compared with SD-FBP, were significantly higher or not statistically different for intervertebral discs, neural foramina and ligaments, while significantly lower or not statistically different for soft tissues and vertebrae. The overall image quality scores were significantly higher with IR compared with FBP, and with LD-IR compared with SD-FBP. CONCLUSION:LD-IR cervical spine CT provides better image quality for intervertebral discs, neural foramina and ligaments, and worse image quality for soft tissues and vertebrae, compared with SD-FBP, while reducing radiation dose by approximately 40 %.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of a standard-dose (SD) and a low-dose (LD) cervical spine CT protocol using filtered back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients investigated by cervical spine CT were prospectively randomised into two groups: SD (120 kVp, 275 mAs) and LD (120 kVp, 150 mAs), both applying automatic tube current modulation. Data were reconstructed using both FBP and sinogram-affirmed IR. Image noise, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were measured. Two radiologists independently and blindly assessed the following anatomical structures at C3-C4 and C6-C7 levels, using a four-point scale: intervertebral disc, content of neural foramina and dural sac, ligaments, soft tissues and vertebrae. They subsequently rated overall image quality using a ten-point scale. RESULTS: For both protocols and at each disc level, IR significantly decreased image noise and increased SNR and CNR, compared with FBP. SNR and CNR were statistically equivalent in LD-IR and SD-FBP protocols. Regardless of the dose and disc level, the qualitative scores with IR compared with FBP, and with LD-IR compared with SD-FBP, were significantly higher or not statistically different for intervertebral discs, neural foramina and ligaments, while significantly lower or not statistically different for soft tissues and vertebrae. The overall image quality scores were significantly higher with IR compared with FBP, and with LD-IR compared with SD-FBP. CONCLUSION: LD-IR cervical spine CT provides better image quality for intervertebral discs, neural foramina and ligaments, and worse image quality for soft tissues and vertebrae, compared with SD-FBP, while reducing radiation dose by approximately 40 %.
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; Terry T Yoshizumi; Giao Nguyen; Greta Toncheva; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Andreia R Gafton; James D Eastwood; Carolyn Lowry; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Eric P Tamm; X John Rong; Dianna D Cody; Randy D Ernst; Nancy E Fitzgerald; Vikas Kundra Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Debdut Biswas; Jesse E Bible; Michael Bohan; Andrew K Simpson; Peter G Whang; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.284
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: T H Mulkens; P Marchal; S Daineffe; R Salgado; P Bellinck; B te Rijdt; B Kegelaers; J-L Termote Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K A Shpilberg; B N Delman; L N Tanenbaum; S J Esses; R Subramaniam; A H Doshi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Scott D Steenburg; Scott Persohn; Changyu Shen; Jeff W Dunkle; Sean D Gussick; Matthew J Petersen; Amy Wisnewski-Rhodes; Ryan T Whitesell Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2014-06-07
Authors: S Notohamiprodjo; R Stahl; M Braunagel; P M Kazmierczak; K M Thierfelder; K M Treitl; S Wirth; M Notohamiprodjo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Patrick Omoumi; Alexandra Rubini; Jean-Emile Dubuc; Bruno C Vande Berg; Frédéric E Lecouvet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Tozakidou; C Reisinger; D Harder; J Lieb; Z Szucs-Farkas; M Müller-Gerbl; U Studler; S Schindera; A Hirschmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N Engelhard; K G Hermann; J Greese; M Fuchs; M Pumberger; M Putzier; T Diekhoff Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 2.199