• Radiology · Jan 2013

    Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study.

    • Zsuzsanna Deák, Jochen M Grimm, Marcus Treitl, Lucas L Geyer, Ulrich Linsenmaier, Markus Körner, Maximilian F Reiser, and Stefan Wirth.
    • Department for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Innenstadt, Nussbaumstrasse 20, 80336 Munich, Germany. zsuzsanna.deak@med.uni-muenchen.de
    • Radiology. 2013 Jan 1; 266 (1): 197-206.

    PurposeTo compare objective and subjective image quality parameters of three image reconstruction algorithms of different generations at routine multidetector computed tomographic (CT) examinations of the abdomen.Materials And MethodsThis institutional review board-approved study included 22 consecutive patients (mean age, 56.1 years ± 15.8 [standard deviation]; mean weight, 79.1 kg ± 14.8) who underwent routine CT examinations of the abdomen. A low-contrast phantom was used for objective quality control. Raw data sets were reconstructed by using filtered back projection (FPB), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). Radiologists used a semiquantitative scale (-3 to +3) to rate subjective image quality and artifacts, comparing both FBP and MBIR images with ASIR images. The Wilcoxon test and the intraclass correlation coefficient were used to evaluate the data. Measurements of objective noise and CT numbers of soft tissue structures were compared with analysis of variance.ResultsThe phantom study revealed an improved detectability of low-contrast targets for MBIR compared with ASIR or FBP. Subjective ratings showed higher image quality for MBIR, with better resolution (median value, 2; range, 1 to 3), lower noise (2; range, 1 to 3), and finer contours (2; range, 1 to 2) compared with ASIR (all P < .001). FBP performed inferiorly (0, range, -2 to 0]; -1 [range, -3 to 0]; 0 [range, -1 to 0], respectively; all, P < .001). Mean interobserver correlation was 0.9 for image perception and 0.7 for artifacts. Objective noise for FBP was 14%-68% higher and for MBIR was 18%-47% lower than that for ASIR (P < .001).ConclusionThe MBIR algorithm considerably improved objective and subjective image quality parameters of routine abdominal multidetector CT images compared with those of ASIR and FBP.RSNA, 2012

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…