Aims.To compare the effective and eye lens radiation dose in helical MDCT brain examinations using automatic tube current modulation in conjunction with either standard filtered back projection (FBP) technique or iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS). Methods. Of 400 adult brain MDCT examinations, 200 were performed using FBP and 200 using IRIS with the following parameters: tube voltage 120 kV, rotation period 1 second, pitch factor 0.55, automatic tube current modulation in both transverse and longitudinal planes with reference mAs 300 (FBP) and 200 (IRIS). Doses were calculated from CT dose index and dose length product values utilising ImPACT software; the organ dose to the lens was derived from the actual tube current-time product value applied to the lens. Image quality was assessed by two independent readers blinded to the type of image reconstruction technique. Results. The average effective scan dose was 1.47±0.26 mSv (FBP) and 0.98±0.15 mSv (IRIS), respectively (33.3% decrease). The average organ dose to the eye lens decreased from 40.0±3.3 mGy (FBP) to 26.6±2.0 mGy (IRIS, 33.5% decrease). No significant change in diagnostic image quality was noted between IRIS and FBP scans (P=0.17). Conclusion. Iterative reconstruction of cerebral MDCT examinations enables reduction of both effective and organ eye lens dose by one third without signficant loss of image quality.
Background and objectives: For the treatment of chronic unilateral radicular syndrome, there are various methods including three minimally invasive computed tomography (CT)-guided methods, namely, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), transforaminal oxygen ozone therapy (TFOOT), and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). Despite this, it is still unclear which of these methods is the best in terms of pain reduction and disability improvement. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the short and long-term effectiveness of these methods by measuring pain relief using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and improvement in disability (per the Oswestry disability index (ODI)) in patients with chronic unilateral radicular syndrome at L5 or S1 that do not respond to conservative treatment. Materials and Methods: After screening 692 patients, we enrolled 178 subjects, each of whom underwent one of the above CT-guided procedures. The PRF settings were as follows: pulse width = 20 ms, f = 2 Hz, U = 45 V, Z ˂ 500 Ω, and interval = 2 × 120 s. For TFOOT, an injection of 4–5 mL of an O2-O3 mixture (24 μg/mL) was administered. For the TFESI, 1 mL of a corticosteroid (betamethasone dipropionate), 3 mL of an anaesthetic (bupivacaine hydrochloride), and a 0.5 mL mixture of a non-ionic contrast agent (Iomeron 300) were administered. Pain intensity was assessed with a questionnaire. Results: The data from 178 patients (PRF, n = 57; TFOOT, n = 69; TFESI, n = 52) who submitted correctly completed questionnaires in the third month of the follow-up period were used for statistical analysis. The median pre-treatment visual analogue scale (VAS) score in all groups was six points. Immediately after treatment, the largest decrease in the median VAS score was observed in the TFESI group, with a score of 3.5 points (a decrease of 41.7%). In the PRF and TFOOT groups, the median VAS score decreased to 4 and 5 points (decreases of 33% and 16.7%, respectively). The difference in the early (immediately after) post-treatment VAS score between the TFESI and TFOOT groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0152). At the third and sixth months after treatment, the median VAS score was five points in all groups, without a statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) values among the groups at any of the follow-up visits. Finally, there were no significant effects of age or body mass index (BMI) on both treatment outcomes (maximum absolute value of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.193). Conclusions: Although the three methods are equally efficient in reducing pain over the entire follow-up, we observed that TFESI (a corticosteroid with a local anaesthetic) proved to be the most effective method for early post-treatment pain relief.
AIM: Prospective evaluation of the results of endoscopic lumbar discectomy. METHODS: 95 patients were consecutively enrolled in the study between 2017 and 2021. We monitored low back pain and sciatica according to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the limitations in daily activities (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), overall satisfaction according to a 0-100 % scale, and the rate of surgical complications and reoperations. RESULTS: Postoperatively, the VAS values of low back pain and sciatica decreased signifi cantly from 5 to 1 point and from 6 to 1 point, respectively, and the pain remained in the tolerable range (VAS 1-2) throughout the follow-up period. The ODI score improved signifi cantly from severe disability (46 %), preoperatively, to moderate disability at discharge and one month after surgery (29 % and 22 %, respectively), down to minimal disability at 3 and 12 months after surgery (12 % and 14 %, respectively). Overall patient satisfaction improved signifi cantly at all follow-up time points (46 %, 70 %, 77 %, 80 %, and 78 %, respectively). Reoperation rate was 6.3 %. Cerebrospinal fl uid leakage was observed in one case only (1.1 %). Transient postoperative perianogenital sensory impairment occurred in two patients (2.1 %). There was no evidence of surgical site infection or haematoma. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic discectomy provides signifi cant pain relief and improves the patient's ability to perform activities of daily living, contributing to greater satisfaction. It is a safe method with a low risk of surgical and neurological complications (Tab.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.