title: Reduced radiation exposure for face transplant surgical planning computed tomography angiography.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To test the hypothesis that wide area detector face transplant surgical planning CT angiograms with simulated lower radiation dose and iterative reconstruction (AIDR3D) are comparable in image quality to those with standard tube current and filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction.
  
  
  METHODS
  The sinograms from 320-detector row CT angiography of four clinical candidates for face transplantation were processed utilizing standard FBP, FBP with simulated 75, 62, and 50% tube current, and AIDR3D with corresponding dose reduction. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured at muscle, fat, artery, and vein. Image quality for each reconstruction strategy was assessed by two independent readers using a 4-point scale.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compared to FBP, the median SNR and CNR for AIDR3D images were higher at all sites for all 4 different tube currents. The AIDR3D with simulated 50% tube current achieved comparable SNR and CNR to FBP with standard dose (median muscle SNR: 5.77 vs. 6.23; fat SNR: 6.40 vs. 5.75; artery SNR: 43.8 vs. 45.0; vein SNR: 54.9 vs. 55.7; artery CNR: 38.1 vs. 38.6; vein CNR: 49.0 vs. 48.7; all p-values >0.19). The interobserver agreement in the image quality score was good (weighted κ = 0.7). The overall score and the scores for smaller arteries were significantly lower when FBP with 50% dose reduction was used. The AIDR3D reconstruction images with 4 different simulated doses achieved a mean score ranging from 3.68 to 3.82 that were comparable to the scores from images reconstructed using FBP with original dose (3.68-3.77).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Simulated radiation dose reduction applied to clinical CT angiography for face transplant planning suggests that AIDR3D allows for a 50% reduction in radiation dose, as compared to FBP, while preserving image quality.
authors: Toshiba Medical Research Institute USA, Vernon Hills, Illinois, United States of America.
authors: Kurt
authors: K
authors: Schultz
authors: Elizabeth
authors: E
authors: George
authors: Katherine M
authors: KM
authors: Mullen
authors: Michael L
authors: ML
authors: Steigner
authors: Dimitrios
authors: D
authors: Mitsouras
authors: Ericka M
authors: EM
authors: Bueno
authors: Bohdan
authors: B
authors: Pomahac
authors: Frank J
authors: FJ
authors: Rybicki
authors: Kanako K
authors: KK
authors: Kumamaru
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000792:Angiography; D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D054445:Facial Transplantation; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011835:Radiation Protection; D011857:Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; D059629:Signal-To-Noise Ratio; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed
references: Curr Probl Surg. 2011 May;48(5):293-357
references: 21463717
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Nov;195(5):1095-9
references: 20966312
references: Eur Radiol. 2013 Apr;23(4):968-74
references: 23064676
references: Eur J Radiol. 2012 Dec;81(12):3905-11
references: 23036786
references: N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 23;366(8):715-22
references: 22204672
references: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jun;29(5):1167-75
references: 23404384
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Oct;199(4):W477-85
references: 22997397
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Sep;195(3):649-54
references: 20729442
references: Eur Radiol. 2012 Feb;22(2):295-301
references: 21927791
references: Radiology. 2010 Jan;254(1):145-53
references: 20032149
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Oct;128(4):883-891
references: 21921764
references: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012 Sep-Oct;6(5):318-24
references: 22981854
references: Eplasty. 2011;11:e51
references: 22184509
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jan;36(1):174-89
references: 19235386
references: Eur J Radiol. 2012 Dec;81(12):4185-95
references: 22883532
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Sep;130(3):549-555
references: 22575856
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013 Oct;34(10):1873-81
references: 22878008
references: Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2012 Oct;36(7):527-41
references: 22575846
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Sep;193(3):764-71
references: 19696291
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Feb;190(2):335-43
references: 18212218
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Dec;189(6):1371-9
references: 18029873
references: Eur Radiol. 2011 Dec;21(12):2521-6
references: 21822785
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 May;198(5):1126-31
references: 22528903
references: Br J Radiol. 2012 Aug;85(1016):e378-82
references: 22253355
references: Phys Med Biol. 1998 Apr;43(4):729-37
references: 9572499
references: Eur J Radiol. 2012 Nov;81(11):3048-54
references: 22613507
references: Invest Radiol. 2011 Jul;46(7):465-70
references: 21467948
references: Invest Radiol. 2010 Apr;45(4):202-10
references: 20177389
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010 Sep-Oct;34(5):766-9
references: 20861783
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Sep;195(3):655-60
references: 20729443
references: Radiology. 2012 Oct;265(1):167-74
references: 22875798
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jan;192(1):143-9
references: 19098193
references: Invest Radiol. 2012 Aug;47(8):468-74
references: 22717881
references: Emerg Radiol. 2006 Mar;12(3):133-6
references: 16362270
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Oct;179(4):933-7
references: 12239041
references: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Mar;29(3):669-76
references: 22923280