INTRODUCTION: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) can decrease image noise, thereby generating CT images of comparable diagnostic quality with less radiation. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of systematic use of ASIR versus filtered back projection (FBP) for neuroradiology CT protocols on patients' radiation dose and image quality. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of ASIR on six types of neuroradiologic CT studies: adult and pediatric unenhanced head CT, adult cervical spine CT, adult cervical and intracranial CT angiography, adult soft tissue neck CT with contrast, and adult lumbar spine CT. For each type of CT study, two groups of 100 consecutive studies were retrospectively reviewed: 100 studies performed with FBP and 100 studies performed with ASIR/FBP blending factor of 40 %/60 % with appropriate noise indices. The weighted volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP) and noise were recorded. Each study was also reviewed for image quality by two reviewers. Continuous and categorical variables were compared by t test and free permutation test, respectively. RESULTS: For adult unenhanced brain CT, CT cervical myelography, cervical and intracranial CT angiography and lumbar spine CT both CTDIvol and DLP were lowered by up to 10.9 % (p < 0.001), 17.9 % (p = 0.005), 20.9 % (p < 0.001), and 21.7 % (p = 0.001), respectively, by using ASIR compared with FBP alone. Image quality and noise were similar for both FBP and ASIR. CONCLUSION: We recommend routine use of iterative reconstruction for neuroradiology CT examinations because this approach affords a significant dose reduction while preserving image quality.
INTRODUCTION: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) can decrease image noise, thereby generating CT images of comparable diagnostic quality with less radiation. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of systematic use of ASIR versus filtered back projection (FBP) for neuroradiology CT protocols on patients' radiation dose and image quality. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of ASIR on six types of neuroradiologic CT studies: adult and pediatric unenhanced head CT, adult cervical spine CT, adult cervical and intracranial CT angiography, adult soft tissue neck CT with contrast, and adult lumbar spine CT. For each type of CT study, two groups of 100 consecutive studies were retrospectively reviewed: 100 studies performed with FBP and 100 studies performed with ASIR/FBP blending factor of 40 %/60 % with appropriate noise indices. The weighted volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP) and noise were recorded. Each study was also reviewed for image quality by two reviewers. Continuous and categorical variables were compared by t test and free permutation test, respectively. RESULTS: For adult unenhanced brain CT, CT cervical myelography, cervical and intracranial CT angiography and lumbar spine CT both CTDIvol and DLP were lowered by up to 10.9 % (p < 0.001), 17.9 % (p = 0.005), 20.9 % (p < 0.001), and 21.7 % (p = 0.001), respectively, by using ASIR compared with FBP alone. Image quality and noise were similar for both FBP and ASIR. CONCLUSION: We recommend routine use of iterative reconstruction for neuroradiology CT examinations because this approach affords a significant dose reduction while preserving image quality.
Authors: G A Vorona; G Zuccoli; T Sutcavage; B L Clayton; R C Ceschin; A Panigrahy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: O Rapalino; Shervin Kamalian; Shahmir Kamalian; S Payabvash; L C S Souza; D Zhang; J Mukta; D V Sahani; M H Lev; S R Pomerantz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mark W Maxfield; Kevin M Schuster; Edward A McGillicuddy; Calvin J Young; Monica Ghita; S A Jamal Bokhari; Isabel B Oliva; James A Brink; Kimberly A Davis Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: M Wintermark; P Maeder; F R Verdun; J P Thiran; J F Valley; P Schnyder; R Meuli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alice B Smith; William P Dillon; Benison C Lau; Robert Gould; Francis R Verdun; Edward B Lopez; Max Wintermark Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Matthias S May; Manuel R Kramer; Achim Eller; Wolfgang Wuest; Michael Scharf; Michael Brand; Marc Saake; Bernhard Schmidt; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Stephan Ellmann; Ferdinand Kammerer; Thomas Allmendinger; Michael Brand; Rolf Janka; Matthias Hammon; Michael M Lell; Michael Uder; Manuel Kramer Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Norah Foster; Christopher Shaffrey; Avery Buchholz; Raymond Turner; Lexie Zidanyue Yang; Donna Niedzwiecki; Allen Goode Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Bjørn Helge Østerås; Kristin Livelten Heggen; Hans Kristian Pedersen; Hilde Kjernlie Andersen; Anne Catrine T Martinsen Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2016-08-17
Authors: Holger Wenz; Máté E Maros; Mathias Meyer; Alex Förster; Holger Haubenreisser; Stefan Kurth; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Flohr; Christianne Leidecker; Christoph Groden; Johann Scharf; Thomas Henzler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 3.240