Tube current reduction and iterative image reconstruction for computed tomography myelography

Karolin J Paprottka; Vivian Schultz; Karina Kupfer; Meinrad Beer; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Thomas Baum; Nico Sollmann

doi:10.1038/s41598-024-79374-3

Tube current reduction and iterative image reconstruction for computed tomography myelography

Sci Rep. 2024 Nov 12;14(1):27751. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79374-3.

Authors

Karolin J Paprottka¹, Vivian Schultz², Karina Kupfer², Meinrad Beer³, Claus Zimmer², Jan S Kirschke^{2

3}, Thomas Baum², Nico Sollmann^{2

3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. Karolin.Paprottka@tum.de.
² Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
³ Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
⁴ TUM-Neuroimaging Center, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

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 (CTDI_vol) 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.

Keywords: Dose reduction; Image quality; Multi-detector computed tomography; Myelography; Radiation exposure.

MeSH terms

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / methods
Male
Middle Aged
Myelography* / methods
Radiation Dosage*
Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / methods
Retrospective Studies
Tomography, X-Ray Computed* / methods