Oliver S Grosser1, Christian Wybranski2,3, Dennis Kupitz2, Maciej Powerski2, Konrad Mohnike2, Maciej Pech2,4, Holger Amthauer2,5, Jens Ricke2. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. oliver.grosser@med.ovgu.de. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. 3. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Second Department of Radiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the influence of an iterative CT reconstruction algorithm (IA), newly available for CT-fluoroscopy (CTF), on image noise, readers' confidence and effective dose compared to filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Data from 165 patients (FBP/IA = 82/74) with CTF in the thorax, abdomen and pelvis were included. Noise was analysed in a large-diameter vessel. The impact of reconstruction and variables (e.g. X-ray tube current I) influencing noise and effective dose were analysed by ANOVA and a pairwise t-test with Bonferroni-Holm correction. Noise and readers' confidence were evaluated by three readers. RESULTS: Noise was significantly influenced by reconstruction, I, body region and circumference (all p ≤ 0.0002). IA reduced the noise significantly compared to FBP (p = 0.02). The effect varied for body regions and circumferences (p ≤ 0.001). The effective dose was influenced by the reconstruction, body region, interventional procedure and I (all p ≤ 0.02). The inter-rater reliability for noise and readers' confidence was good (W ≥ 0.75, p < 0.0001). Noise and readers' confidence were significantly better in AIDR-3D compared to FBP (p ≤ 0.03). Generally, IA yielded a significant reduction of the median effective dose. CONCLUSION: The CTF reconstruction by IA showed a significant reduction in noise and effective dose while readers' confidence increased. KEY POINTS: • CTF is performed for image guidance in interventional radiology. • Patient exposure was estimated from DLP documented by the CT. • Iterative CT reconstruction is appropriate to reduce image noise in CTF. • Using iterative CT reconstruction, the effective dose was significantly reduced in abdominal interventions.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the influence of an iterative CT reconstruction algorithm (IA), newly available for CT-fluoroscopy (CTF), on image noise, readers' confidence and effective dose compared to filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Data from 165 patients (FBP/IA = 82/74) with CTF in the thorax, abdomen and pelvis were included. Noise was analysed in a large-diameter vessel. The impact of reconstruction and variables (e.g. X-ray tube current I) influencing noise and effective dose were analysed by ANOVA and a pairwise t-test with Bonferroni-Holm correction. Noise and readers' confidence were evaluated by three readers. RESULTS: Noise was significantly influenced by reconstruction, I, body region and circumference (all p ≤ 0.0002). IA reduced the noise significantly compared to FBP (p = 0.02). The effect varied for body regions and circumferences (p ≤ 0.001). The effective dose was influenced by the reconstruction, body region, interventional procedure and I (all p ≤ 0.02). The inter-rater reliability for noise and readers' confidence was good (W ≥ 0.75, p < 0.0001). Noise and readers' confidence were significantly better in AIDR-3D compared to FBP (p ≤ 0.03). Generally, IA yielded a significant reduction of the median effective dose. CONCLUSION: The CTF reconstruction by IA showed a significant reduction in noise and effective dose while readers' confidence increased. KEY POINTS: • CTF is performed for image guidance in interventional radiology. • Patient exposure was estimated from DLP documented by the CT. • Iterative CT reconstruction is appropriate to reduce image noise in CTF. • Using iterative CT reconstruction, the effective dose was significantly reduced in abdominal interventions.
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: Ioannis A Tsalafoutas; Virginia Tsapaki; Charicleia Triantopoulou; Akrivi Gorantonaki; John Papailiou Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Roman Kloeckner; Daniel Pinto dos Santos; Jens Schneider; Levent Kara; Christoph Dueber; Michael B Pitton Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Anne Catrine Trægde Martinsen; Hilde Kjernlie Sæther; Per Kristian Hol; Dag Rune Olsen; Per Skaane Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Oliver S Grosser; Dennis Kupitz; Juri Ruf; Damian Czuczwara; Ingo G Steffen; Christian Furth; Markus Thormann; David Loewenthal; Jens Ricke; Holger Amthauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Oliver S Grosser; Juri Ruf; Dennis Kupitz; Damian Czuczwara; David Loewenthal; Markus Thormann; Christian Furth; Jens Ricke; Timm Denecke; Maciej Pech; Michael C Kreissl; Holger Amthauer Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2019-06-20
Authors: Katharina S Winter; Veronika Greif; Alexander Crispin; Caroline Burgard; Robert Forbrig; Thomas Liebig; Christoph G Trumm; Robert Stahl Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-02
Authors: Sandra Sarmento; Joana S Pereira; Maria José Sousa; Luís T Cunha; Anabela G Dias; Miguel F Pereira; Augusto D Oliveira; João V Cardoso; Luís M Santos; João A M Santos; João G Alves Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 2.102