Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2024 Nov 12;14(1):27751. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79374-3.
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 (CTDI) 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 < 0.05). In conclusion, implementation of a LD protocol with tube current reduction for CT myelography is a feasible option to reduce radiation exposure, especially when combined with iterative image reconstruction. In our study, LD imaging did not have a relevant negative impact on image quality, confidence for intervention planning or guidance, or diagnostic certainty for CT myelography.
本研究旨在系统评估使用管电流降低的低剂量(LD)方案对 CT 脊髓造影的图像质量、干预计划和指导的信心以及诊断收益的影响。我们回顾性分析了 68 例接受 CT 脊髓造影的患者,其中 34 例采用标准剂量(SD)进行检查,34 例采用 LD 方案(使用管电流降低)进行检查。不同的扫描通过性别、年龄、脊柱器械的存在和身体直径等变量进行匹配。所有图像均由两位读者(R1 和 R2)使用李克特量表进行评估。使用脊柱旁肌肉组织的衰减值测量图像噪声。使用基于模型的迭代重建(脊髓造影后诊断扫描)或混合重建(计划、围手术期和诊断扫描)对图像进行重建。根据两位读者的评估,SD 和 LD 扫描的图像质量、总体伪影、图像对比度以及对计划或干预指导的信心均被评为良好至完美。对于干预计划(κ≥0.80)以及干预指导(κ≥0.77)和诊断扫描(κ≥0.85)的图像,读者间的一致性为良好至极好。对于介入程序的计划(基于模型的迭代重建:SD 45.37±7.29 HU 与 LD 45.17±9.12 HU;混合重建:SD 46.05±7.43 HU 与 LD 45.05±8.69 HU;p>0.05),LD 扫描与 SD 扫描之间的图像噪声相似。与 SD 方案相比,LD 方案用于计划扫描以及围手术期扫描时,体积加权 CT 剂量指数(CTDI)和体型特异性剂量估计(SSDE)均显著降低(p<0.05)。总之,对于 CT 脊髓造影,使用管电流降低的 LD 方案是减少辐射暴露的可行选择,尤其是与迭代图像重建相结合时。在我们的研究中,LD 成像对图像质量、干预计划或指导的信心以及 CT 脊髓造影的诊断确定性没有产生明显的负面影响。