| 1 | 低剂量迭代重建对肝脏CT增强扫描图像质量的影响显示文摘目的探讨低剂量迭代重建对肝脏CT增强扫描图像质量的影响。方法选择疑似肝肿瘤或肝肿瘤复查者84例,根据入院顺序分为低剂量组和常规剂量组各42例。两组均采用西门子64排128层螺旋CT机行肝脏CT增强扫描检查,低剂量组与常规剂量组管电压分别为80、120 k V,采用迭代重建技术重建门静脉数据。比较两组有效辐射剂量、图像质量客观评价指标[肝CT值、噪声、信噪比(SNR)、对比噪声比(CNR)]及图像质量主管评价指标(分辨率评分、图像失真评分、诊断信心评分)。结果低剂量组、常规剂量组有效辐射剂量分别为(4.23±0.27)、(7.64±0.67)m Sv,P<0.05。低剂量组肝CT值、SNR、CNR均高于常规剂量组,P均<0.05;两组噪声比较,P>0.05。低剂量组分辨率评分低于常规剂量组,P<0.05。两组图像失真评分、诊断信心评分比较,P均>0.05。结论低剂量迭代重建的有效辐射剂量少,对肝脏CT增强扫描图像质量的影响较小。 | 蒋骏麟 | 2015 | 山东医药2015，55，48： | 5 |
| 2 | Assessment of sub-milli-sievert abdominal computed tomography with iterative reconstruction techniques of different vendors显示文摘AIM: To assess diagnostic image quality of reduced dose(RD) abdominal computed tomography(CT) with 9 iterative reconstruction techniques(IRTs) from 4 different vendors to the standard of care(SD) CT.METHODS: In an Institutional Review Board approved study, 66 patients(mean age 60 ± 13 years, 44 men, and 22 women) undergoing routine abdomen CT on multi-detector CT(MDCT) scanners from vendors A, B, and C(≥ 64 row CT scanners)(22 patients each) gave written informed consent for acquisition of an additional RD CT series. Sinogram data of RD CT was reconstructed with two vendor-specific and a vendor-neutral IRTs(A-1, A-2, A-3; B-1, B-2, B-3; and C-1, C-2, C-3) and SD CT series with filtered back projection. Subjective image evaluation was performed by two radiologists for each SD and RD CT series blinded and independently. All RD CT series(198) were assessed first followed by SD CT series(66). Objective image noise was measured for SD and RD CT series. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank, kappa, and analysis of variance tests.RESULTS: There were 13/50, 18/57 and 9/40 missed lesions(size 2-7 mm) on RD CT for vendor A, B, and C, respectively. Missed lesions includes liver cysts, kidney cysts and stone, gall stone, fatty liver, and pancreatitis. There were also 5, 4, and 4 pseudo lesions(size 2-3 mm) on RD CT for vendor A, B, and C, respectively. Lesions conspicuity was sufficient for clinical diagnostic performance for 6/24(RD-A-1), 10/24(RD-A-2), and 7/24(RD-A-3) lesions for vendor A; 5/26(RD-B-1), 6/26(RD-B-2), and 7/26(RD-B-3) lesions for vendor B; and 4/20(RD-C-1) 6/20(RD-C-2), and 10/20(RD-C-3) lesions for vendor C(P = 0.9). Mean objective image noise in liver was significantly lower for RD A-1 compared to both RD A-2 and RD A-3 images(P < 0.001). Similarly, mean objective image noise lower for RD B-2(compared to RD B-1, RD B-3) and RD C-3(compared to RD C-1 and C-2)(P = 0.016).CONCLUSION: Regardless of IRTs and MDCT vendors, abdominal CT acquired at mean CT dose index volume 1.3 m Gy is not sufficient to retain clinical diagnostic performance. | Atul Padole Nisha Sainani Diego Lira Ranish Deedar Ali Khawaja Sarvenaz Pourjabbar Roberto Lo Gullo Alexi Otrakji Mannudeep K Kalra | 2016 | World Journal of Radiology2016，8，6： | 1 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员