Jin Hyeok Kim1, Ki Seok Choo2, Tae Yong Moon1, Jun Woo Lee1, Ung Bae Jeon1, Tae Un Kim1, Jae Yeon Hwang1, Myeong-Ja Yun3, Dong Wook Jeong4, Soo Jin Lim5. 1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Pusan, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Pusan, Korea. kschoo0618@naver.com. 3. Department of Preventive and Occupational Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Pusan, Korea. 5. Department of Cardiology, Kimhae Jungang Hospital, Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the subjective and objective qualities of computed tomography (CT) venography images at 80 kVp using model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and to compare these with those of filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) using the same CT data sets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients (mean age: 56.1 ± 18.1) who underwent 80 kVp CT venography (CTV) for the evaluation of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during 4 months were enrolled in this retrospective study. The same raw data were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR, and MBIR. Objective and subjective image analysis were performed at the inferior vena cava (IVC), femoral vein, and popliteal vein. RESULTS: The mean CNR of MBIR was significantly greater than those of FBP and ASIR and images reconstructed using MBIR had significantly lower objective image noise (p < .001). Subjective image quality and confidence of detecting DVT by MBIR group were significantly greater than those of FBP and ASIR (p < .005), and MBIR had the lowest score for subjective image noise (p < .001). CONCLUSION: CTV at 80 kVp with MBIR was superior to FBP and ASIR regarding subjective and objective image qualities. KEY POINTS: • MBIR provides superior image quality compared with FBP and ASIR • CTV at 80kVp with MBIR improves diagnostic confidence in diagnosing DVT • CTV at 80kVp with MBIR presents better image quality with low radiation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the subjective and objective qualities of computed tomography (CT) venography images at 80 kVp using model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and to compare these with those of filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) using the same CT data sets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients (mean age: 56.1 ± 18.1) who underwent 80 kVp CT venography (CTV) for the evaluation of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during 4 months were enrolled in this retrospective study. The same raw data were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR, and MBIR. Objective and subjective image analysis were performed at the inferior vena cava (IVC), femoral vein, and popliteal vein. RESULTS: The mean CNR of MBIR was significantly greater than those of FBP and ASIR and images reconstructed using MBIR had significantly lower objective image noise (p < .001). Subjective image quality and confidence of detecting DVT by MBIR group were significantly greater than those of FBP and ASIR (p < .005), and MBIR had the lowest score for subjective image noise (p < .001). CONCLUSION: CTV at 80 kVp with MBIR was superior to FBP and ASIR regarding subjective and objective image qualities. KEY POINTS: • MBIR provides superior image quality compared with FBP and ASIR • CTV at 80kVp with MBIR improves diagnostic confidence in diagnosing DVT • CTV at 80kVp with MBIR presents better image quality with low radiation.
Authors: Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Frédéric A Miéville; François Gudinchet; Francis Brunelle; François O Bochud; Francis R Verdun Journal: Phys Med Date: 2012-01-02 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Kyung Hwa Rhee; Ramesh S Iyer; Susan Cha; David P Naidich; Henry Rusinek; Glenn R Jacobowitz; Jane P Ko Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.605