Fulltext

Computed tomography of the cervical spine: comparison of image quality between a standard-dose and a low-dose protocol using filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction

Becce, Fabio ; Ben Salah, Yosr ; Verdun, Francis ; Vande Berg, Bruno ; Lecouvet, Frederic ; Meuli, Reto ; Omoumi, Patrick

In: Skeletal Radiology, 2013, vol. 42, no. 7, p. 937-945

Aggiungi alla tua lista
    Titre
    • Computed tomography of the cervical spine: comparison of image quality between a standard-dose and a low-dose protocol using filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction
    Auteur
    • Becce, Fabio. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Ben Salah, Yosr. Department of Radiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
    • Verdun, Francis. Institute of Radiation Physics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Rue du Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Vande Berg, Bruno. Department of Radiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
    • Lecouvet, Frederic. Department of Radiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
    • Meuli, Reto. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Omoumi, Patrick. Department of Radiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
    Type de document
    • Postprint
    Identifiant OAI-PMH
    • oai:doc.rero.ch:321877
    Summary
    Objective: To compare image quality of a standard-dose (SD) and a low-dose (LD) cervical spine CT protocol using filtered back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Materials and methods: Forty patients investigated by cervical spine CT were prospectively randomised into two groups: SD (120kVp, 275mAs) and LD (120kVp, 150mAs), both applying automatic tube current modulation. Data were reconstructed using both FBP and sinogram-affirmed IR. Image noise, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were measured. Two radiologists independently and blindly assessed the following anatomical structures at C3-C4 and C6-C7 levels, using a four-point scale: intervertebral disc, content of neural foramina and dural sac, ligaments, soft tissues and vertebrae. They subsequently rated overall image quality using a ten-point scale. Results: For both protocols and at each disc level, IR significantly decreased image noise and increased SNR and CNR, compared with FBP. SNR and CNR were statistically equivalent in LD-IR and SD-FBP protocols. Regardless of the dose and disc level, the qualitative scores with IR compared with FBP, and with LD-IR compared with SD-FBP, were significantly higher or not statistically different for intervertebral discs, neural foramina and ligaments, while significantly lower or not statistically different for soft tissues and vertebrae. The overall image quality scores were significantly higher with IR compared with FBP, and with LD-IR compared with SD-FBP. Conclusion: LD-IR cervical spine CT provides better image quality for intervertebral discs, neural foramina and ligaments, and worse image quality for soft tissues and vertebrae, compared with SD-FBP, while reducing radiation dose by approximately 40%