Comparing the image quality of a mobile flat-panel computed tomography and a multidetector computed tomography: A phantom study

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 49, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 491-497

  Neubauer, Jakob ^a   Voigt, Johannes M ^b   Lang, Hannah ^a   Scheuer, Carsten ^c   Goerke, Sebastian M ^a   Langer, Mathias ^a   Fiebich, Martin ^b   Kotter, Elmar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection University of Applied Sciences GieQen   (Germany)

^c Clinic Darmstadt   (Germany)

Author keywords

cone beam CT; digital volume tomography; flat panel CT; image quality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING PHANTOM; KIRSCHNER WIRE; MOBILE FLAT PANEL COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS; DEVICES; ELECTRONICS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION STUDY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; X RAY FILM;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; MINIATURIZATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 84902209298     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000042     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Kalender WA. The use of flat-panel detectors for CT imaging. Radiologe. 2003;43:379-387. (Pubitemid 36702362)
2. Gupta R, Grasruck M, Suess C, et al. Ultra-high resolution flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, design architecture, and system characterization. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1191-1205. (Pubitemid 43834706)
3. Kalender WA, Kyriakou Y. Flat-detector computed tomography (FD-CT). Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2767-2779. (Pubitemid 47603972)
4. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52:707-730, v.
5. Reichardt B, Sarwar A, Bartling SH, et al. Musculoskeletal applications of flatpanel volume CT. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37:1069-1076.
6. Guggenberger R, Fischer MA, Hodler J, et al. Flat-panel CT arthrography: feasibility study and comparison to multidetector CT arthrography. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:312-318.
7. Guggenberger R, Morsbach F, Alkadhi H, et al. C-Arm flat-panel CT arthrography of the wrist and elbow: first experiences in human cadavers. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42:419-429.
8. Zbijewski W, De Jean P, Prakash P, et al. A dedicated cone-beam CT system for musculoskeletal extremities imaging: design, optimization, and initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2011;38:4700-4713.
9. Tuominen EK, Kankare J, Koskinen SK, et al. Weight-bearing CT imaging of the lower extremity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;200:146-148.
10. De Cock J, Mermuys K, Goubau J, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography: a new low dose, high resolution imaging technique of the wrist, presentation of three cases with technique. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41:93-96.
11. Schmidt R, Wulff J, Kaestner B, et al. Monte Carlo based calculation of patient exposure in X-ray CT-examinations. 4th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering. 2009:2487-2490.
12. EGSnrc. Software tool to model radiation transport. Available at: http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/solutions/advisory/egsnrc-index.html. Accessed July 15, 2013.
13. Poludniowski G, Landry G, DeBlois F, et al. SpekCalc: a program to calculate photon spectra from tungsten anode x-ray tubes. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54: N433-N438.
14. Menzel HG, Clement C, DeLuca P. ICRP publication 110. Realistic reference phantoms: an ICRP/ICRU joint effort: a report of adult reference computational phantoms. Ann ICRP. 2009;39:1-164.
15. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1-332.
16. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, et al. Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;114:127-135.
17. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:671-675.
18. Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, et al. Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Rofo. 2011;183:144-153.
19. Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Spiczak JV, et al. In vitro high-resolution flatpanel computed tomographic arthrography for artificial cartilage defect detection: comparison with multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:614-621.
20. NEMA. DICOM Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. 2011. Available at: http://medical.nema.org/Dicom/2011/11-14pu.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2013.
21. McKenney SE, Nosratieh A, Gelskey D, et al. Experimental validation of a method characterizing bow tie filters in CT scanners using a real-Time dose probe. Med Phys. 2011;38:1406-1415.
22. Damet J, Sans-Merce M, Mieville F, et al. Comparison of organ doses and image quality between CT and flat panel XperCT scans in wrist and inner ear examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;139:164-168.
23. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:461-468.
24. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, et al. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:83-86.
25. Koivisto J, Kiljunen T, Wolff J, et al. Assessment of effective radiation dose of an extremity CBCT, MSCT and conventional X ray for knee area using MOSFET dosemeters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2013;157:515-524.
26. Orth RC, Wallace MJ, Kuo MD. C-Arm cone-beam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:814-820.
27. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24:1679-1691.
28. Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P, et al. Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:198-203. (Pubitemid 46999234)
29. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:265-273.
30. Meinel FG, Bischoff B, Zhang Q, et al. Metal artifact reduction by dual-energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation: a systematically optimized protocol. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:406-414.
31. Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Kachelrie M, et al. Reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography caused by hip endoprostheses using a physics-based approach. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:747-754.
32. Radon J. On the determination of functions from their integral values along certain manifolds. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1986;5:170-176. (Pubitemid 17517170)
33. Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Kress JW. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1984;1:612-619.
34. Kalender WA. X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R29-R43. (Pubitemid 43958606)
35. Blendl C, Fiebich M, Voigt JM, et al. Investigation on the 3 D geometric accuracy and on the image quality (MTF, SNR and NPS) of volume tomography units (CT, CBCT and DVT). Rofo. 2012;184:24-31.
36. The-Phantom-Laboratory. Catphan\ 500 and 600 Manual. Salem, NY: The Phantom Laboratory; 2006:17.