Sun Hwa Lee1, Seong Jong Yun2, Hyeon Hwan Jo3, Dong Hyeon Kim3, Jae Gwang Song4, Yong Sung Park5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 1342 Dongil-ro, Seoul, Nowon-gu, 139-707, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Aerospace Medical Center, Republic of Korea Air Force, PO Box 335-21, 635 Danjae-ro, Namil-myeon, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-849, Republic of Korea. zoomknight@naver.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Aerospace Medical Center, Republic of Korea Air Force, PO Box 335-21, 635 Danjae-ro, Namil-myeon, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-849, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aerospace Medical Center, Republic of Korea Air Force, PO Box 335-21, 635 Danjae-ro, Namil-myeon, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-849, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, 149 Sangil-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, 134-727, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic performance between low-dose (LD) and ultra-low-dose (ULD) lumbar-spine (L-spine) CT with iterative reconstruction (IR) for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: In total, 260 patients with chronic LBP who underwent L-spine CT between November 2015 and September 2016 were prospectively enrolled. Of these, 143 underwent LD-CT with IR and 117 underwent ULD-CT with IR. The patients were divided according to their body mass index (BMI) into BMI1 (<22.9 kg/m2), BMI2 (23.0-24.9 kg/m2), and BMI3 (≥25 kg/m2) groups. Two blinded radiologists independently evaluated the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), qualitative image quality, and final diagnoses (lumbar disc disease and facet joint osteoarthritis). L-spine MRIs interpreted by consensus were used as the reference standard. All data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: ULD protocol showed significantly lower SNR for all patients (p < 0.001) except the vertebral bodies and lower qualitative image quality for BMI3 patients (p ≤ 0.033). There was no statistically significant difference between ULD (sensitivity, 95.1-98.1%; specificity, 92.5-98.7%; accuracy, 94.6-98.0%) and LD protocols (sensitivity, 95.6-100%; specificity, 95.5-98.9%; accuracy, 97.4-98.1%), (all p≥0.1) in the BMI1 and BMI2; while dose was 60-68% lower with the ULD protocol. Interobserver agreements were excellent or good with regard to image quality and final diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: For the BM1 and BMI2 groups, ULD-CT provided an acceptable image quality and exhibited a diagnostic accuracy similar to that of LD-CT. These findings suggest that it is a useful diagnostic tool for patients with chronic LBP who exhibit a BMI of <25 kg/m2.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic performance between low-dose (LD) and ultra-low-dose (ULD) lumbar-spine (L-spine) CT with iterative reconstruction (IR) for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: In total, 260 patients with chronic LBP who underwent L-spine CT between November 2015 and September 2016 were prospectively enrolled. Of these, 143 underwent LD-CT with IR and 117 underwent ULD-CT with IR. The patients were divided according to their body mass index (BMI) into BMI1 (<22.9 kg/m2), BMI2 (23.0-24.9 kg/m2), and BMI3 (≥25 kg/m2) groups. Two blinded radiologists independently evaluated the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), qualitative image quality, and final diagnoses (lumbar disc disease and facet joint osteoarthritis). L-spine MRIs interpreted by consensus were used as the reference standard. All data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: ULD protocol showed significantly lower SNR for all patients (p < 0.001) except the vertebral bodies and lower qualitative image quality for BMI3 patients (p ≤ 0.033). There was no statistically significant difference between ULD (sensitivity, 95.1-98.1%; specificity, 92.5-98.7%; accuracy, 94.6-98.0%) and LD protocols (sensitivity, 95.6-100%; specificity, 95.5-98.9%; accuracy, 97.4-98.1%), (all p≥0.1) in the BMI1 and BMI2; while dose was 60-68% lower with the ULD protocol. Interobserver agreements were excellent or good with regard to image quality and final diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: For the BM1 and BMI2 groups, ULD-CT provided an acceptable image quality and exhibited a diagnostic accuracy similar to that of LD-CT. These findings suggest that it is a useful diagnostic tool for patients with chronic LBP who exhibit a BMI of <25 kg/m2.
Authors: Cheong-Il Shin; Se Hyung Kim; Jong Pil Im; Sang Gyun Kim; Mi Hye Yu; Eun Sun Lee; Joon Koo Han Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Rogier M van Rijn; Merel Wassenaar; Arianne P Verhagen; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Abida Z Ginai; Michiel R de Boer; Maurits W van Tulder; Bart W Koes Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Wouter van der Bruggen; Marlous Hagelstein-Rotman; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Frits Smit; P D Sander Dijkstra; Natasha M Appelman-Dijkstra; Dennis Vriens Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-10-29
Authors: Nico Sollmann; Kai Mei; Dennis M Hedderich; Christian Maegerlein; Felix K Kopp; Maximilian T Löffler; Claus Zimmer; Ernst J Rummeny; Jan S Kirschke; Thomas Baum; Peter B Noël Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.315