Cargando…

Pelvic bone CT: can tin-filtered ultra-low-dose CT and virtual radiographs be used as alternative for standard CT and digital radiographs?

OBJECTIVES: To compare ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) of the osseous pelvis with tin filtration to standard clinical CT (CT), and to assess the quality of computed virtual pelvic radiographs (VRs). METHODS: CT protocols were optimized in a phantom and three pelvic cadavers. Thirty prospectively included...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stern, Christoph, Sommer, Stefan, Germann, Christoph, Galley, Julien, Pfirrmann, Christian W. A., Fritz, Benjamin, Sutter, Reto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8379132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33710371
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07824-x
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To compare ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) of the osseous pelvis with tin filtration to standard clinical CT (CT), and to assess the quality of computed virtual pelvic radiographs (VRs). METHODS: CT protocols were optimized in a phantom and three pelvic cadavers. Thirty prospectively included patients received both standard CT (automated tube voltage selection and current modulation) and tin-filtered ULD-CT of the pelvis (Sn140kV/50mAs). VRs of ULD-CT data were computed using an adapted cone beam–based projection algorithm and were compared to digital radiographs (DRs) of the pelvis. CT and DR dose parameters and quantitative and qualitative measures (1 = worst, 4 = best) were compared. CT and ULD-CT were assessed for osseous pathologies. RESULTS: Dose reduction of ULD-CT was 84% compared to CT, with a median effective dose of 0.38 mSv (quartile 1–3: 0.37–0.4 mSv) versus 2.31 mSv (1.82–3.58 mSv; p < .001), respectively. Mean dose of DR was 0.37 mSv (± 0.14 mSv). The median signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of bone were significantly higher for CT (64.3 and 21.5, respectively) compared to ULD-CT (50.4 and 18.8; p ≤ .01), while ULD-CT was significantly more dose efficient (figure of merit (FOM) 927.6) than CT (FOM 167.6; p < .001). Both CT and ULD-CT were of good image quality with excellent depiction of anatomy, with a median score of 4 (4–4) for both methods (p = .1). Agreement was perfect between both methods regarding the prevalence of assessed osseous pathologies (p > .99). VRs were successfully calculated and were equivalent to DRs. CONCLUSION: Tin-filtered ULD-CT of the pelvis at a dose equivalent to standard radiographs is adequate for assessing bone anatomy and osseous pathologies and had a markedly superior dose efficiency than standard CT. KEY POINTS: • Ultra-low-dose pelvic CT with tin filtration (0.38 mSv) can be performed at a dose of digital radiographs (0.37 mSv), with a dose reduction of 84% compared to standard CT (2.31 mSv). • Tin-filtered ultra-low-dose CT had lower SNR and CNR and higher image noise than standard CT, but showed clear depiction of anatomy and accurate detection of osseous pathologies. • Virtual pelvic radiographs were successfully calculated from ultra-low-dose CT data and were equivalent to digital radiographs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-07824-x.