4.5 Article

Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction technique in computed tomography of lumbar spine lowers radiation dose and improves tissue differentiation for patients with lower back pain

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 85, Issue 10, Pages 1757-1764

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.07.015

Keywords

Computer tomography; Diagnostic confidence; Image quality; Iterative reconstruction; Lumbar spine; Radiation dose

Funding

  1. Taipei Veterans General Hospital grant [V102C-044]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate the image quality and diagnostic confidence of reduced-dose computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine (L-spine) reconstructed with knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR). Materials and methods: Prospectively, group A consisted of 55 patients imaged with standard acquisition reconstructed with filtered back-projection. Group B consisted of 58 patients imaged with half tube current, reconstructed with hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose(4)) in Group B1 and knowledge-based IMR in Group B2. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of different regions, the contrast-to-noise ratio between the intervetebral disc (IVD) and dural sac (D-D CNR), and subjective image quality of different regions were compared. Higher strength IMR was also compared in spinal stenosis cases. Results: The SNR of the psoas muscle and D-D CNR were significantly higher in the IMR group. Except for the facet joint, subjective image quality of other regions including IVD, intervertebral foramen (IVF), dural sac, peridural fat, ligmentum flavum, and overall diagnostic acceptability were best for the IMR group. Diagnostic confidence of narrowing IVF and IVD was good (kappa = 0.58-0.85). Higher strength IMR delineated IVD better in spinal stenosis cases. Conclusion: Lower dose CT of L-spine reconstructed with IMR demonstrates better tissue differentiation than iDose(4) and standard dose CT with FBP. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available