This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Musculoskeletal bone, Pelvis, Radiation physics, CT, CT-Quantitative, Experimental investigations, Diagnostic procedure, Dosimetry, Prostheses, Dosimetric comparison
Authors:
R. H. H. Wellenberg1, M. F. Boomsma1, J. van Osch1, A. Vlassenbroek2, J. Milles3, D. Mueller4, M. Maas5; 1Zwolle/NL, 2Best/NL, 3Eindhoven/NL, 4Hamburg/DE, 5Amsterdam/NL
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2015/B-0567
Results
At identical dose-levels,
mean CNR of 6.41,
10.09,
25.82 (p<0.001) and noise levels [HU] of 50.00,
29.87,
and 10.66 (p<0.001) were obtained for FBP,
IR and MBIR respectively.
These measurements were obtained by averaging the values of all pellets without the insertion of a prosthesis.
Even at half-dose CNR is higher and noise is reduced with MBIR when compared with FBP and IR at normal and high dose in a clinical setting.
Pellet L0 and L4 were unaffected by metal artefacts due to their location in the phantom.
The most severe artefacts are presented in pellet L8 located next to the large head of the prosthesis.
For these severe metal artefacts O-MAR works best.
O-MAR in combination with MBIR,
IR and FBP results in an artefact reduction of HU of respectively 63.30%,
59.95% and 50.24% towards reference HU values (p<0.005).
Figure 5,
zoomed in at the head of the prosthesis,
clearly shows the additional value of O-MAR and MBIR.
Figure 6 illustrates the CNR without the insertion of a prosthesis,
with prosthesis and with prosthesis and O-MAR.
And even more promising,
the CNR of the severely affected pellet L8 at half dose is greater using MBIR combined with O-MAR than for both IR and FBP with O-MAR at high dose therefore increasing dose reduction possibilities.
Image quality of MBIR combined with O-MAR is superior to FBP and IR combined with O-MAR at a third of the dose,
illustrated in Figure 7.