Keywords:
CT, Pelvis, Extremities, Abdomen, Comparative studies, Artifacts
Authors:
T. Fujioka1, T. Osonoi1, K. Fukuda1, H. Osakabe2, D. Suzuki1, A. Koizumi1, M. Igarashi1, F. Nakagawa1; 1Minatoku, Tokyo/JP, 2Tokyo/JP
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2013/C-1222
Results
Result 1(Visual evaluation of Low contrast detectability)
All low contrast Modules was not detected in imaging with FBP.
All readers' score was the same.
(fig.3)
In case of imaging with O-MAR,
low contrast Modules were detected 5mm,
7mm,
10mm.
All readers' score was the same.
(fig.4)
In case of imaging with Reference FBP,
low contrast Modules were detected 5mm,
7mm,
10mm.
All readers' score was the same.
(fig.5)
Result 2(Measurement CT Value and standard deviation of Low contrast Modules)(fig.6)
In case of FBP image compared to Reference FBP image,
it showed a very high SD value and very low CT value at all measurement points.
In case of O-MAR image compared to Reference FBP image,
CT value and SD notably recovered as compared to FBP.
As a result,
CT value and SD in O-MAR image approached Reference FBP Image.
Result 3(Measurement Metal Artifact Index ; MAI)(fig.7)
In case of FBP image compared to Reference FBP image,
MAI value increased in three ROI(s) which is parallel to metal objects.
(Center,
Left,
Right)
MAI value increased in two ROI(s) which is vertical to metal objects.
(Top,
Bottom)
In case of O-MAR image compared to Reference FBP image,
MAI value recovered and approached the value of Reference FBP image.
Therefore,
O-MAR indicates that there is a higher effect of Metal Artifact Reduction than FBP.