Search

Abstract This study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of a low-dose (LD) protocol using tube current reduction on image quality, the confidence for intervention planning and guidance, and diagnostic yield for computed tomography (CT) myelography. We retrospectively analyzed 68 patients who underwent CT myelography, with 34 investigations performed with a standard-dose (SD) and 34 investigations performed with a LD protocol (using tube current reduction). The different scans were matched considering variables such as sex, age, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using Likert scales. Image noise was measured using attenuation values of paraspinal muscle tissue. Images were reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (post-myelography diagnostic scans) or hybrid reconstruction (planning, periprocedural, and diagnostic scans). Image quality, overall artifacts, image contrast, and confidence for planning or intervention guidance were rated good to perfect for both SD and LD scans according to evaluations of both readers. Inter-reader agreement was good to very good for the images from intervention planning (κ ≥ 0.80) as well as for intervention guidance (κ ≥ 0.77), as well as for diagnostic scans (κ ≥ 0.85). Image noise was similar between SD and LD scans performed for planning of the interventional procedures (model-based iterative reconstruction: SD 45.37 ± 7.29 HU vs. LD 45.17 ± 9.12 HU; hybrid reconstruction: SD 46.05 ± 7.43 HU vs. LD 45.05 ± 8.69 HU; p > 0.05). The volume-weighted CT dose index (CTDIvol) and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) were significantly lower for the planning scans as well as the periprocedural scans when using the LD protocol as compared to the SD protocol (p

Abstract This study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of dose reduction on image quality and confidence for intervention planning and guidance regarding computed tomography (CT)-based intervertebral disc and vertebral body biopsies. We retrospectively analyzed 96 patients who underwent multi-detector CT (MDCT) acquired for the purpose of biopsies, which were either derived from scanning with standard dose (SD) or low dose (LD; using tube current reduction). The SD cases were matched to LD cases considering sex, age, level of biopsy, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images for planning (reconstruction: “IMR1”) and periprocedural guidance (reconstruction: “iDose4”) were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using Likert scales. Image noise was measured using attenuation values of paraspinal muscle tissue. The dose length product (DLP) was statistically significantly lower for LD scans regarding the planning scans (SD: 13.8 ± 8.2 mGy*cm, LD: 8.1 ± 4.4 mGy*cm, p 0.05). Image noise was similar between SD and LD scans performed for planning of the interventional procedures (SD: 14.62 ± 2.83 HU vs. LD: 15.45 ± 3.22 HU, p = 0.24). Use of a LD protocol for MDCT-guided biopsies along the spine is a practical alternative, maintaining overall image quality and confidence. Increasing availability of model-based iterative reconstruction in clinical routine may facilitate further radiation dose reductions.

Abstract Periradicular infiltrations are frequently performed in daily neuroradiological routine and are often guided by multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), thus leading to radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate MDCT with low dose (LD) and model-based iterative reconstruction for image-guided periradicular infiltrations at the cervical and lumbosacral spine. We retrospectively analyzed 204 MDCT scans acquired for the purpose of cervical or lumbosacral periradicular interventions, which were either derived from scanning with standard dose (SD; 40 mA and 120 kVp) or LD (20–30 mA and 120 kVp) using a 128-slice MDCT scanner. The SD cases were matched to the LD cases considering sex, age, level of infiltration, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images were reconstructed using model-based iterative image reconstruction and were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using 5- or 3-point Likert scales (score of 1 reflects the best value per category). Furthermore, noise in imaging data was quantitatively measured by the standard deviation (StDev) of muscle tissue. The dose length product (DLP) was statistically significantly lower for LD scans (6.75 ± 6.43 mGy*cm vs. 10.16 ± 7.70 mGy*cm; p 0.05 for all items). This resulted in high confidence for intervention planning as well as periprocedural intervention guidance for both SD and LD scans. The inter-reader agreement was at least substantial (weighted Cohen’s κ ≥ 0.62), except for confidence in intervention planning for LD scans (κ = 0.49). In conclusion, considerable dose reduction for planning and performing periradicular infiltrations with MDCT using model-based iterative image reconstruction is feasible and can be performed without clinically relevant drawbacks regarding image quality or confidence for planning.