Comparison of Iterative Model Reconstruction versus Filtered Back-Projection in Pediatric Emergency Head CT: Dose, Image Quality, and Image-Reconstruction Times

被引:22
|
作者
Southard, R. N. [1 ]
Bardo, D. M. E. [1 ]
Temkit, M. H. [2 ]
Thorkelson, M. A. [1 ]
Augustyn, R. A. [1 ]
Martinot, C. A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Phoenix Childrens Hosp, Dept Med Imaging, Phoenix, AZ USA
[2] Phoenix Childrens Hosp, Dept Clin Res, Phoenix, AZ USA
关键词
COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; REDUCTION; PROTOCOLS; HYBRID;
D O I
10.3174/ajnr.A6034
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noncontrast CT of the head is the initial imaging test for traumatic brain injury, stroke, or suspected nonaccidental trauma. Low-dose head CT protocols using filtered back-projection are susceptible to increased noise and decreased image quality. Iterative reconstruction noise suppression allows the use of lower-dose techniques with maintained image quality. We review our experience with children undergoing emergency head CT examinations reconstructed using knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction versus standard filtered back-projection, comparing reconstruction times, radiation dose, and objective and subjective image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study comparing 173 children scanned using standard age-based noncontrast head CT protocols reconstructed with filtered back-projection with 190 children scanned using low-dose protocols reconstructed with iterative model reconstruction. ROIs placed on the frontal white matter and thalamus yielded signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios. Volume CT dose index and study reconstruction times were recorded. Random subgroups of patients were selected for subjective image-quality review. RESULTS: The volume CT dose index was significantly reduced in studies reconstructed with iterative model reconstruction compared with filtered back-projection, (mean, 24.4 3.1 mGy versus 31.1 +/- 6.0 mGy, P < .001), while the SNR and contrast-to-noise ratios improved 2-fold (P < .001). Radiologists graded iterative model reconstruction images as superior to filtered back-projection images for gray-white matter differentiation and anatomic detail (P < .001). The average reconstruction time of the filtered back-projection studies was 101 seconds, and with iterative model reconstruction, it was 147 seconds (P < .001), without a practical effect on work flow. CONCLUSIONS: In children referred for emergency noncontrast head CT, optimized low-dose protocols with iterative model reconstruction allowed us to significantly reduce the relative dose, on average, 22% compared with filtered back-projection, with significantly improved objective and subjective image quality.
引用
收藏
页码:866 / 871
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Pediatric Head CT Image Quality With Iterative Reconstruction Versus Filtered Back Projection
    Oberle, R.
    Kim, E.
    Wu, I.
    Ho, C.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 198 (05)
  • [2] Iterative Reconstruction in Head CT: Image Quality of Routine and Low-Dose Protocols in Comparison with Standard Filtered Back-Projection
    Korn, A.
    Fenchel, M.
    Bender, B.
    Danz, S.
    Hauser, T. K.
    Ketelsen, D.
    Flohr, T.
    Claussen, C. D.
    Heuschmid, M.
    Ernemann, U.
    Brodoefel, H.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 2012, 33 (02) : 218 - 224
  • [3] Comparison of image quality in pediatric head computed tomography reconstructed using blended iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection
    Ho, Chang
    Oberle, Robert
    Wu, Isaac
    Kim, Eugene
    [J]. CLINICAL IMAGING, 2014, 38 (03) : 231 - 235
  • [4] Comparison of the image qualities of filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction for CT venography at 80 kVp
    Jin Hyeok Kim
    Ki Seok Choo
    Tae Yong Moon
    Jun Woo Lee
    Ung Bae Jeon
    Tae Un Kim
    Jae Yeon Hwang
    Myeong-Ja Yun
    Dong Wook Jeong
    Soo Jin Lim
    [J]. European Radiology, 2016, 26 : 2055 - 2063
  • [5] Comparison of the image qualities of filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction for CT venography at 80 kVp
    Kim, Jin Hyeok
    Choo, Ki Seok
    Moon, Tae Yong
    Lee, Jun Woo
    Jeon, Ung Bae
    Kim, Tae Un
    Hwang, Jae Yeon
    Yun, Myeong-Ja
    Jeong, Dong Wook
    Lim, Soo Jin
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2016, 26 (07) : 2055 - 2063
  • [6] CT coronary angiography: Image quality with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction compared with filtered back-projection
    Wang, R.
    Schoepf, U. J.
    Wu, R.
    Gibbs, K. P.
    Yu, W.
    Li, M.
    Zhang, Z.
    [J]. CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2013, 68 (03) : 272 - 278
  • [7] An adaptive filtered back-projection for photoacoustic image reconstruction
    Huang, He
    Bustamante, Gilbert
    Peterson, Ralph
    Ye, Jing Yong
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (05) : 2169 - 2178
  • [8] Patient dose and image quality in low-dose abdominal CT: a comparison between iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection
    Kataria, Bharti
    Smedby, Orjan
    [J]. ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2013, 54 (05) : 540 - 548
  • [9] Comparison study of image quality between filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction algorithm for dose reduction in chest CT
    Son, Junyoung
    Lee, Donghoon
    Jeon, Pil-Hyun
    Choi, Sunghoon
    Kim, Hyemi
    Kim, Hee-Joung
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON MEDICAL IMAGING IN ASIA 2019, 2019, 11050
  • [10] Improved Image Quality in Dual-Energy Abdominal CT: Comparison of Iterative Reconstruction in Image Space and Filtered Back Projection Reconstruction
    Wang, Rui
    Yu, Wei
    Wu, Runze
    Yang, Hua
    Lu, Dongxu
    Liu, Jiayi
    Zhang, Zhaoqi
    Zhang, Chuanchen
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 199 (02) : 402 - 406