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
  • [31] Comparison of Image Noise in Dual Energy CT Images Reconstructed Using Filtered Back-Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, and Deep Learning Methods
    Prakash, P.
    Nett, B.
    Tang, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 47 (06) : E521 - E521
  • [32] Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose
    Lee M. Mitsumori
    William P. Shuman
    Janet M. Busey
    Orpheus Kolokythas
    Kent M. Koprowicz
    [J]. European Radiology, 2012, 22 : 138 - 143
  • [33] Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography With Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction, Iterative Reconstruction in Image Space, and Filtered Back Projection: Studies on Image Quality
    Hwang, Hye Jeon
    Seo, Joon Beom
    Lee, Hyun Joo
    Lee, Sang Min
    Kim, Eun Young
    Oh, Sang Young
    Kim, Ji-Eun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2013, 37 (04) : 610 - 617
  • [34] Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose
    Mitsumori, Lee M.
    Shuman, William P.
    Busey, Janet M.
    Kolokythas, Orpheus
    Koprowicz, Kent M.
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (01) : 138 - 143
  • [35] Model-based Iterative Reconstruction Compared to Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction and Filtered Back-projection in CT of the Kidneys and the Adjacent Retroperitoneum
    Olcott, Eric W.
    Shin, Lewis K.
    Sommer, Graham
    Chan, Ian
    Rosenberg, Jarrett
    Molvin, F. Lior
    Boas, F. Edward
    Fleischmann, Dominik
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2014, 21 (06) : 774 - 784
  • [36] IMAGE-RECONSTRUCTION FROM PROJECTIONS .2. MODIFIED BACK-PROJECTION METHODS
    LEWITT, RM
    BATES, RHT
    PETERS, TM
    [J]. OPTIK, 1978, 50 (02): : 85 - 109
  • [37] Evaluation of Heavily Calcified Vessels with Coronary CT Angiography: Comparison of Iterative and Filtered Back Projection Image Reconstruction
    Renker, Matthias
    Nance, John W., Jr.
    Schoepf, U. Joseph
    O'Brien, Terrence X.
    Zwerner, Peter L.
    Meyer, Mathias
    Kerl, J. Matthias
    Bauer, Ralf W.
    Fink, Christian
    Vogl, Thomas J.
    Henzler, Thomas
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2011, 260 (02) : 390 - 399
  • [38] Comparison of applied dose and image quality in staging CT of neuroendocrine tumor patients using standard filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction
    Boening, G.
    Schaefer, M.
    Grupp, U.
    Kaul, D.
    Kahn, J.
    Pavel, M.
    Maurer, M.
    Denecke, T.
    Hamm, B.
    Streitparth, F.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2015, 84 (08) : 1601 - 1607
  • [39] Iterative Reconstruction for Head CT: Effects on Radiation Dose and Image Quality
    Rivers-Bowerman, Michael D.
    Shankar, Jai Jai Shiva
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2014, 41 (05) : 620 - 625
  • [40] Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique—comparison with traditional filtered back projection
    Antonio Moscariello
    Richard A. P. Takx
    U. Joseph Schoepf
    Matthias Renker
    Peter L. Zwerner
    Terrence X. O’Brien
    Thomas Allmendinger
    Sebastian Vogt
    Bernhard Schmidt
    Giancarlo Savino
    Christian Fink
    Lorenzo Bonomo
    Thomas Henzler
    [J]. European Radiology, 2011, 21