Comparison of acquisition and iterative reconstruction parameters in abdominal computed tomography-guided procedures: a phantom study.
Imaging guided biopsy
computer-assisted
image reconstruction
low-dose computed tomography (low-dose CT)
noise reduction
Journal
Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
24
03
2021
accepted:
21
06
2021
entrez:
7
1
2022
pubmed:
8
1
2022
medline:
8
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many computed tomography (CT) navigation systems have been developed to help radiologists improve the accuracy and safety of the procedure. We evaluated the accuracy of one CT computer-assisted guided procedure with different reduction dose protocols. A total of 128 punctures were randomly made by two operators on two different anthropomorphic phantoms. The tube voltage was fixed to 100 kVp. Tube currents (mAs) were defined to obtain 4 dose levels: 180 mAs (D1.00), 90 mAs (D0.50), 45 mAs (D0.25) and 15 mAs (D0.10) with respective volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 7.02, 3.52, 1.75 and 0.59 mGy. The raw data were reconstructed using level 2 of advanced model-based iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) (A2) for D1.00, A3 for D0.50, A4 for D0.25 and A5 for D0.10. Two 12-mm targets per phantom were selected. The mean Euclidean distance (EuD) between the tip of the needle and the isocenter of the target was measured for each puncture. The different measures were compared by paired Student's The mean EuD was 7.0±3.1 mm for the 128 punctures performed. Regardless of which phantom was considered, no significant difference in accuracy occurred between the 4 dose levels, which were 7.1±3.5 mm for D1.00; 7.1±3.1 mm for D0.50; 7.2±3.0 mm for D0.25 and 6.6±2.6 mm for D0.10. Abdominal CT-guided procedures, using computer-assisted navigation and iterative reconstruction algorithms, allow precise punctures on anthropomorphic phantoms with a dose reduction of -92% compared to a standard protocol.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many computed tomography (CT) navigation systems have been developed to help radiologists improve the accuracy and safety of the procedure. We evaluated the accuracy of one CT computer-assisted guided procedure with different reduction dose protocols.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 128 punctures were randomly made by two operators on two different anthropomorphic phantoms. The tube voltage was fixed to 100 kVp. Tube currents (mAs) were defined to obtain 4 dose levels: 180 mAs (D1.00), 90 mAs (D0.50), 45 mAs (D0.25) and 15 mAs (D0.10) with respective volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 7.02, 3.52, 1.75 and 0.59 mGy. The raw data were reconstructed using level 2 of advanced model-based iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) (A2) for D1.00, A3 for D0.50, A4 for D0.25 and A5 for D0.10. Two 12-mm targets per phantom were selected. The mean Euclidean distance (EuD) between the tip of the needle and the isocenter of the target was measured for each puncture. The different measures were compared by paired Student's
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean EuD was 7.0±3.1 mm for the 128 punctures performed. Regardless of which phantom was considered, no significant difference in accuracy occurred between the 4 dose levels, which were 7.1±3.5 mm for D1.00; 7.1±3.1 mm for D0.50; 7.2±3.0 mm for D0.25 and 6.6±2.6 mm for D0.10.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Abdominal CT-guided procedures, using computer-assisted navigation and iterative reconstruction algorithms, allow precise punctures on anthropomorphic phantoms with a dose reduction of -92% compared to a standard protocol.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34993078
doi: 10.21037/qims-21-328
pii: qims-12-01-281
pmc: PMC8666743
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
281-291Informations de copyright
2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-328). Dr. RL serves as an unpaid deputy editor of Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Apr;192(4):881-6
pubmed: 19304690
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2017;95(3):183-188
pubmed: 28601874
Acad Radiol. 2016 Sep;23(9):1130-6
pubmed: 27317393
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jul;205(1):W19-31
pubmed: 26102414
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Apr;198(4):W347-51
pubmed: 22451571
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Aug;79(2):e133-6
pubmed: 21680125
Radiographics. 2012 Jul-Aug;32(4):1109-19; discussion 1119-20
pubmed: 22786997
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Dec;82(12):2253-7
pubmed: 24050880
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Oct;205(4):W390-9
pubmed: 26397346
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016 Apr;41(4):743-53
pubmed: 26920005
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2020 Oct;29(5):275-282
pubmed: 31393746
Int J Med Robot. 2015 Dec;11(4):458-75
pubmed: 25475147
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Feb;91 Suppl 1:23-8
pubmed: 19182018
Phys Med. 2017 Mar;35:88-96
pubmed: 28238578
J Xray Sci Technol. 2014;22(3):309-19
pubmed: 24865207
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013 Nov;94(11):1117-21
pubmed: 23796396
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015 Oct;5(5):640-8
pubmed: 26682133
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Sep;85(9):1637-44
pubmed: 27501900
Eur Radiol. 2018 Sep;28(9):3929-3935
pubmed: 29594401
Eur J Radiol. 2015 Nov;84(11):2218-21
pubmed: 26223776
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Jul;197(1):W97-103
pubmed: 21701002
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2019 Feb;9(2):188-200
pubmed: 30976543
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 May;188(5):1187-94
pubmed: 17449757
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018 May;99(5):311-320
pubmed: 29396085
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5690-5701
pubmed: 32361774
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 15;12(3):e0173751
pubmed: 28296957
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Apr;82(4):627-32
pubmed: 23265179
Eur Radiol. 2014 Sep;24(9):2109-17
pubmed: 24895034
Acta Radiol. 2020 Jan;61(1):28-36
pubmed: 31091966
Rofo. 2016 May;188(5):470-8
pubmed: 27074422