Comparison of Iterative Model Reconstruction versus Filtered Back-Projection in Pediatric Emergency Head CT: Dose, Image Quality, and Image-Reconstruction Times

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Wier LM,
   3. Hao Y,
   4. Owens PV, et al

   . Overview of Children in the Emergency Department, 2010. Statistical Brief #157. June 2013. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154386/. Accessed March 26, 2019.
2. 2.↵
   2. Ryan M,
   3. Palasis S,
   4. Saigal G, et al

   . ACR Appropriateness Criteria head trauma: child. J Am Coll Radiol 2014;11:939–47 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2014.07.017 pmid:25164794

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Coakley F,
   3. Gould R,
   4. Yeh B, et al

   . CT radiation dose: what can you do right now in your practice? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:619–25 doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5043 pmid:21343506

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Mahesh M

   . Advances in CT technology and application to pediatric imaging. Pediatr Radiol 2011;41(Suppl 2):493–97 doi:10.1007/s00247-011-2169-1 pmid:21847728

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Smith A,
   3. Dillon W,
   4. Gould R, et al

   . Radiation dose-reduction strategies for neuroradiology CT protocols. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1628–32 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0814 pmid:17893208

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Seibert J

   . Iterative reconstruction: how it works, how to apply it. Pediatr Radiol 2014;44(Suppl 3):431–39 doi:10.1007/s00247-014-3102-1 pmid:25304701

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Padole A,
   3. Khawaja DR,
   4. Kalra MK, et al

   . CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:W384–92 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13241 pmid:25794087

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Willemink MJ,
   3. Schilham AM,
   4. Leiner T, et al

   . Iterative reconstruction does not substantially delay CT imaging in the emergency setting. Insights Imaging 2013;4:391–97 doi:10.1007/s13244-013-0226-z pmid:23417822

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Mirro AE,
   3. Brady SL,
   4. Kaufman RA

   . Full dose-reduction potential of statistical iterative reconstruction for head CT protocols in a predominantly pediatric population. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1199–205 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4754 pmid:27056425

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Harris M,
    3. Huckle J,
    4. Anthony D, et al

    . The acceptability of iterative reconstruction algorithms in head CT: an assessment of Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction (SAFIRE) vs. filtered back projection (FBP) using phantoms. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 2017;48:259–69 doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2017.04.002

    CrossRef
11. 11.↵
    2. Ho C,
    3. Oberle R,
    4. Wu I, et al

    . Comparison of image quality in pediatric head computed tomography reconstructed using blended iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection. Clin Imaging 2014;38:231–35 doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2013.12.009 pmid:24456988

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Korn A,
    3. Fenchel M,
    4. Bender B, et al

    . Iterative reconstruction in head CT: image quality of routine and low-dose protocols in comparison with standard filtered back-projection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:218–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2749 pmid:22033719

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Ren Q,
    3. Dewan SK,
    4. Li M, et al

    . Comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in brain CT. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2597–601 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.041 pmid:22304977

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Bodelle B,
    3. Klein E,
    4. Naguib NN, et al

    . Acute intracranial hemorrhage in CT: benefits of sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:445–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3801 pmid:24263695

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Singh S,
    3. Kalra MK,
    4. Shenoy-Bhangle AS, et al

    . Radiation dose reduction with hybrid iterative reconstruction for pediatric CT. Radiology 2012;263:537–46 doi:10.1148/radiol.12110268 pmid:22517962

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Vorona G,
    3. Zuccoli G,
    4. Sutcavage T, et al

    . The use of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in pediatric head CT: a feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:205–11 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3122 pmid:22627796

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Kilic K,
    3. Erbas G,
    4. Guryildirim M, et al

    . Quantitative and qualitative comparison of standard-dose and low-dose pediatric head computed tomography: a retrospective study assessing the effect of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013;37:377–81 doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e31828426de pmid:23674008

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. McKnight C,
    3. Watcharotone K,
    4. Ibrahim M, et al

    . Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: reducing dose while preserving image quality in the pediatric head CT examination. Pediatr Radiol 2014;44:997–1003 doi:10.1007/s00247-014-2943-y pmid:24696285

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Thomas A,
    3. Southard R,
    4. Curran J, et al

    . Comparing fourth generation statistical iterative reconstruction technique to standard filtered back projection in pediatric head computed tomography examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018;42:475–81 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000690 pmid:29189401

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Kim HG,
    3. Lee HJ,
    4. Lee SK, et al

    . Head CT: image quality improvement with ASIR-V using a reduced radiation dose protocol for children. Eur Radiol 2017;27:3609–17 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4733-z pmid:28116512

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Ono S,
    3. Niwa T,
    4. Yanagimachi N, et al

    . Improved image quality of helical computed tomography of the head in children by iterative reconstruction. J Neuroradiol 2016;43:31–36 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2015.07.005 pmid:26519982

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Notohamiprodjo S,
    3. Deak Z,
    4. Meurer F, et al

    . Image quality of iterative reconstruction in cranial CT imaging: comparison of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR). Eur Radiol 2015;25:140–46 doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3374-8 pmid:25097137

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. den Harder AM,
    3. Willemink MJ,
    4. Budde RP, et al

    . Hybrid and model-based iterative reconstruction techniques for pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:645–53 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12590 pmid:25714298

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Smith EA,
    3. Dillman JR,
    4. Goodsitt MM, et al

    . Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. Radiology 2014;270:526–34 doi:10.1148/radiol.13130362 pmid:24091359

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Cheng B,
    3. Xing H,
    4. Lei D, et al

    . Impact of iterative model reconstruction combined with dose reduction on the image quality of head and neck CTA in children. Sci Rep 2018;8:12613 doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30300-4 pmid:30135541

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Liu X,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Weiwei Q, et al

    . Thin-slice brain CT with iterative reconstruction algorithm for small lacunar lesions detection: image quality and diagnostic accuracy evaluation. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e9412 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009412 pmid:29390563

    CrossRefPubMed