Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz1, Lars-Arne Schaafs2, Christoph Erxleben2, Bernd Hamm2, Stefan Markus Niehues2. 1. Klinik und Hochschulambulanz für Radiologie, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany. fabian.elsholtz@charite.de. 2. Klinik und Hochschulambulanz für Radiologie, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT)-guided periradicular infiltration therapy has emerged as an effective treatment option for patients with low back pain. Concern about radiation exposure requires approaches allowing significant dose reduction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the need for iterative reconstruction software in CT-guided periradicular infiltration therapy with an ultra-low-dose protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients underwent CT-guided periradicular infiltration therapy of the lumbar spine using an ultra-low-dose protocol with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) for image reconstruction. In addition, images were reconstructed with filtered back-projection (FBP). Four experienced raters evaluated both reconstruction types for conspicuity of anatomical and instrumental features important for ensuring safe patient treatment. Image noise was measured as a quantitative marker of image quality. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was good for both AIDR 3D (Kendall's W = 0.83) and FBP (0.78) reconstructions. Readers assigned the same scores for all features and both reconstruction algorithms in 81.3% of cases. Image noise was significantly lower (average SD of 60.07 vs. 99.54, p < 0.05) for AIDR 3D-reconstructed images. CONCLUSION: Although it significantly lowers image noise, iterative reconstruction software is not mandatory to achieve adequate image quality with an ultra-low-dose CT protocol for guiding periradicular infiltration therapy of the lumbar spine.
PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT)-guided periradicular infiltration therapy has emerged as an effective treatment option for patients with low back pain. Concern about radiation exposure requires approaches allowing significant dose reduction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the need for iterative reconstruction software in CT-guided periradicular infiltration therapy with an ultra-low-dose protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients underwent CT-guided periradicular infiltration therapy of the lumbar spine using an ultra-low-dose protocol with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) for image reconstruction. In addition, images were reconstructed with filtered back-projection (FBP). Four experienced raters evaluated both reconstruction types for conspicuity of anatomical and instrumental features important for ensuring safe patient treatment. Image noise was measured as a quantitative marker of image quality. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was good for both AIDR 3D (Kendall's W = 0.83) and FBP (0.78) reconstructions. Readers assigned the same scores for all features and both reconstruction algorithms in 81.3% of cases. Image noise was significantly lower (average SD of 60.07 vs. 99.54, p < 0.05) for AIDR 3D-reconstructed images. CONCLUSION: Although it significantly lowers image noise, iterative reconstruction software is not mandatory to achieve adequate image quality with an ultra-low-dose CT protocol for guiding periradicular infiltration therapy of the lumbar spine.
Authors: Lucas L Geyer; G Russell Glenn; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Mark Van Horn; Christian Canstein; Justin R Silverman; Aleksander W Krazinski; Jenny M Kemper; Andreas Bucher; Ullrich Ebersberger; Philip Costello; Fabian Bamberg; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz; Lars-Arne Schaafs; Christoph Erxleben; Bernd Hamm; Stefan Markus Niehues Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Sigal Trattner; Gregory D N Pearson; Cynthia Chin; Dianna D Cody; Rajiv Gupta; Christopher P Hess; Mannudeep K Kalra; James M Kofler; Mayil S Krishnam; Andrew J Einstein Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Federico Bruno; Nicola Carboni; Pierpaolo Palumbo; Francesco Arrigoni; Marco Varrassi; Antonio Izzo; Nadia Catallo; Ernesto Di Cesare; Carlo Masciocchi; Alessandra Splendiani; Andrea Giovagnoni; Antonio Barile Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 1.764