Top

Published in:

01-07-2013 | Scientific Article

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

Authors: Fabio Becce, Yosr Ben Salah, Francis R. Verdun, Bruno C. Vande Berg, Frederic E. Lecouvet, Reto Meuli, Patrick Omoumi

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 7/2013

Abstract

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 (120 kVp, 275 mAs) and LD (120 kVp, 150 mAs), 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 %.

Freund M, Sartor K. Degenerative spine disorders in the context of clinical findings. Eur J Radiol. 2006;58:15–26.PubMedCrossRef

Douglas-Akinwande AC, Rydberg J, Shah MV, et al. Accuracy of contrast-enhanced MDCT and MRI for identifying the severity and cause of neural foraminal stenosis in cervical radiculopathy: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:55–61.PubMedCrossRef

Tins B. Technical aspects of CT imaging of the spine. Insights Imaging. 2010;1:349–59.PubMedCrossRef

Biswas D, Bible JE, Bohan M, Simpson AK, Whang PG, Grauer JN. Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1882–9.PubMedCrossRef

Lee TY, Chhem RK. Impact of new technologies on dose reduction in CT. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76:28–35.PubMedCrossRef

Tamm EP, Rong XJ, Cody DD, Ernst RD, Fitzgerald NE, Kundra V. Quality initiatives: CT radiation dose reduction: how to implement change without sacrificing diagnostic quality. Radiographics. 2011;31:1823–32.PubMedCrossRef

Hoang JK, Yoshizumi TT, Nguyen G, et al. Variation in tube voltage for adult neck MDCT: effect on radiation dose and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:621–7.PubMedCrossRef

Leswick DA, Hunt MM, Webster ST, Fladeland DA. Thyroid shields versus z-axis automatic tube current modulation for dose reduction at neck CT. Radiology. 2008;249:572–80.PubMedCrossRef

Gervaise A, Louis M, Batch T, et al. Dose reduction at CT of the lumbar spine using a 320-detector row scanner: initial results. J Radiol. 2010;91:779–85.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2010;257:373–83.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Pontana F, Pagniez J, Flohr T, et al. Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 1): evaluation of image noise reduction in 32 patients. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:627–35.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Moscariello A, Takx RA, Schoepf UJ, et al. 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. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2130–8.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G, et al. Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2521–6.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Wirth S, Meindl T, Treitl M, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser M. Comparison of different patient positioning strategies to minimize shoulder girdle artifacts in head and neck CT. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1757–62.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Mulkens TH, Marchal P, Daineffe S, et al. Comparison of low-dose with standard-dose multidetector CT in cervical spine trauma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:1444–50.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA. Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology. 2010;257:158–66.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR 16262 http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/index.htm accessed October 13, 2011.

18.

Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ. 1996;313:36–9.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Gervaise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S, et al. CT image quality improvement using Adaptative Iterative Dose Reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:295–301.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Dougeni E, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. A review of patient dose and optimisation methods in adult and paediatric CT scanning. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:e665–83.PubMedCrossRef

Title: 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
Authors: Fabio Becce
Yosr Ben Salah
Francis R. Verdun
Bruno C. Vande Berg
Frederic E. Lecouvet
Reto Meuli
Patrick Omoumi
Publication date: 01-07-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Skeletal Radiology / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1576-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2013

Is dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI useful for assessing proximal fragment vascularity in scaphoid fracture delayed and non-union?

Plexiform nerve sheath tumor or vascular malformation—role of advanced MR neurography and diffusion tensor imaging

Browser’s notes

Society of Skeletal Radiology 2013 Annual Meeting March 17 – 20, 2013

Epiphyseal lesion of the humerus in a child

Intraosseous hibernoma: a case report and review of the literature