OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the effect of iDose4 hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm (Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH) on radiation dose and image quality in chest–abdomen–pelvis (CAP) CT scanning of adult patients. METHODS: CAP CT examinations were performed on 99 patients with the use of the “old standard” protocol performing filtered back projection reconstruction algorithm (FBP protocol) and on 84 patients with the use of iDose4 protocol on a 64-multidetector CT. Patients were subdivided into three weight groups (Group 1, 41–60kg; Group 2, 61–90kg; and Group 3, .90kg). Volume CT dose index and dose length product (DLP) were recorded, while effective dose was calculated from DLP measurements. Objective image noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. Two radiologists reviewed images to evaluate image quality. RESULTS: Compared with the FBP protocol, there was an overall 46.5% significant decrease in effective dose with the use of iDose4 protocol. CONCLUSION: Objective image quality was higher in iDose4 images than in FBP images. Subjective image noise, sharpness, contrast and diagnostic confidence scores tended to be better for iDose4 protocol at the decreased radiation exposure level. Artefacts were minor for both protocols. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our results suggest that the iterative acquisition protocol provides great potential for reducing radiation exposure and maintaining or improving image quality in CAP CT examinations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the effect of iDose4 hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm (Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH) on radiation dose and image quality in chest–abdomen–pelvis (CAP) CT scanning of adult patients. METHODS: CAP CT examinations were performed on 99 patients with the use of the “old standard” protocol performing filtered back projection reconstruction algorithm (FBP protocol) and on 84 patients with the use of iDose4 protocol on a 64-multidetector CT. Patients were subdivided into three weight groups (Group 1, 41–60kg; Group 2, 61–90kg; and Group 3, .90kg). Volume CT dose index and dose length product (DLP) were recorded, while effective dose was calculated from DLP measurements. Objective image noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. Two radiologists reviewed images to evaluate image quality. RESULTS: Compared with the FBP protocol, there was an overall 46.5% significant decrease in effective dose with the use of iDose4 protocol. CONCLUSION: Objective image quality was higher in iDose4 images than in FBP images. Subjective image noise, sharpness, contrast and diagnostic confidence scores tended to be better for iDose4 protocol at the decreased radiation exposure level. Artefacts were minor for both protocols. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our results suggest that the iterative acquisition protocol provides great potential for reducing radiation exposure and maintaining or improving image quality in CAP CT examinations.
Authors: Peter B Noël; Alexander A Fingerle; Bernhard Renger; Daniela Münzel; Ernst J Rummeny; Martin Dobritz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stephan Baumueller; Anna Winklehner; Christoph Karlo; Robert Goetti; Thomas Flohr; Erich W Russi; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Mischa Woisetschläger; Nils Dahlström; Sarabjeet Singh; Maria Lindblom; Garry Choy; Petter Quick; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Sedlmair; Michael A Blake; Anders Persson Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
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: Matthias S May; Wolfgang Wüst; Michael Brand; Christian Stahl; Thomas Allmendinger; Bernhard Schmidt; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Tracy A Jaffe; Terry T Yoshizumi; Greta Toncheva; Colin Anderson-Evans; Carolyn Lowry; Chad M Miller; Rendon C Nelson; Carl E Ravin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Przemysław Bombiński; Michał Brzewski; Stanisław Warchoł; Agnieszka Biejat; Marcin Banasiuk; Marek Gołębiowski Journal: Pol J Radiol Date: 2018-04-27
Authors: Hua Li; Steven Dolly; Hsin-Chen Chen; Mark A Anastasio; Daniel A Low; Harold H Li; Jeff M Michalski; Wade L Thorstad; Hiram Gay; Sasa Mutic Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Przemysław Bombiński; Michał Brzewski; Stanislaw Warchol; Agnieszka Biejat; Marcin Banasiuk; Marek Gołębiowski Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2018-12-27