OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality of virtual monoenergetic images and polyenergetic images reconstructed from dual-layer detector CT angiography (DLCTA). METHODS: Thirty patients who underwent DLCTA of the head and neck were retrospectively identified and polyenergetic as well as virtual monoenergetic images (40 to 120 keV) were reconstructed. Signals (± SD) of the cervical and cerebral vessels as well as lateral pterygoid muscle and the air surrounding the head were measured to calculate the CNR and SNR. In addition, subjective image quality was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Student's t-test and Wilcoxon test were used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Compared to polyenergetic images, although noise increased with lower keV, CNR (p < 0.02) and SNR (p > 0.05) of the cervical, petrous and intracranial vessels were improved in virtual monoenergetic images at 40 keV and virtual monoenergetic images at 45 keV were also rated superior regarding vascular contrast, assessment of arteries close to the skull base and small arterial branches (p < 0.0001 each). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to polyenergetic images, virtual monoenergetic images reconstructed from DLCTA at low keV ranging from 40 to 45 keV improve the objective and subjective image quality of extra- and intracranial vessels and facilitate assessment of vessels close to the skull base and of small arterial branches. KEY POINTS: • Virtual monoenergetic images greatly improve attenuation, while noise only slightly increases. • Virtual monoenergetic images show superior contrast-to-noise ratios compared to polyenergetic images. • Virtual monoenergetic images significantly improve image quality at low keV.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality of virtual monoenergetic images and polyenergetic images reconstructed from dual-layer detector CT angiography (DLCTA). METHODS: Thirty patients who underwent DLCTA of the head and neck were retrospectively identified and polyenergetic as well as virtual monoenergetic images (40 to 120 keV) were reconstructed. Signals (± SD) of the cervical and cerebral vessels as well as lateral pterygoid muscle and the air surrounding the head were measured to calculate the CNR and SNR. In addition, subjective image quality was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Student's t-test and Wilcoxon test were used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Compared to polyenergetic images, although noise increased with lower keV, CNR (p < 0.02) and SNR (p > 0.05) of the cervical, petrous and intracranial vessels were improved in virtual monoenergetic images at 40 keV and virtual monoenergetic images at 45 keV were also rated superior regarding vascular contrast, assessment of arteries close to the skull base and small arterial branches (p < 0.0001 each). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to polyenergetic images, virtual monoenergetic images reconstructed from DLCTA at low keV ranging from 40 to 45 keV improve the objective and subjective image quality of extra- and intracranial vessels and facilitate assessment of vessels close to the skull base and of small arterial branches. KEY POINTS: • Virtual monoenergetic images greatly improve attenuation, while noise only slightly increases. • Virtual monoenergetic images show superior contrast-to-noise ratios compared to polyenergetic images. • Virtual monoenergetic images significantly improve image quality at low keV.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computed tomography angiography; Dual-energy CT; Head and neck; Image quality; Virtual monoenergetic images
Authors: Victor Neuhaus; Nuran Abdullayev; Nils Große Hokamp; Gregor Pahn; Christoph Kabbasch; Anastasios Mpotsaris; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; Jesko Trommer; Julian L Wichmann; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Simon S Martin; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Moritz Kaup; Johannes Kraft; Eva-Maria Nöske; Friedrich Scheerer; Boris Schulz; Iris Burck; Jens Wagenblast; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Sonja Sudarski; Paul Apfaltrer; John W Nance; David Schneider; Mathias Meyer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Christian Fink; Thomas Henzler Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Michael M Lell; Gregor Jost; Johannes Georg Korporaal; Andreas Horst Mahnken; Thomas G Flohr; Michael Uder; Hubertus Pietsch Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Giuseppe Cicero; Silvio Mazziotti; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Simon S Martin; Ahmed E Othman; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Arwed Elias Michael; Jan Boriesosdick; Denise Schoenbeck; Ingo Lopez-Schmidt; Jan Robert Kroeger; Christoph Moenninghoff; Sebastian Horstmeier; Lenhard Pennig; Jan Borggrefe; Julius Henning Niehoff Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Nuran Abdullayev; Thorsten Lichtenstein; Kai Roman Laukamp; Robert Peter Reimer; Christoph Kabbasch; Jan Borggrefe; Marc Schlamann; Victor Neuhaus; Nils Große Hokamp Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08
Authors: Lukas Lenga; Marvin Lange; Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Christian Booz; Ibrahim Yel; Christophe T Arendt; Thomas J Vogl; Doris Leithner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 3.039