2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-014-0166-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ultra-low-dose computed tomographic angiography with model-based iterative reconstruction compared with standard-dose imaging after endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective pilot study

Abstract: Compared with a standard-dose technique, an ultra-low-dose model-based iterative reconstruction protocol provides comparable image quality and diagnostic assessment at a 73% lower radiation dose.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our study protocol closely follows the ultra-low dose approach of a study by Naidu et al [26]. They achieved comparable image quality and endoleak detection accuracy with a single-energy CT protocol in 20 patients at 100 kV p with model-based iterative reconstruction in delayed phase after injection of 2.2 mL/kg of 350 mg I/mL contrast medium resulting in a mean CTDI vol of 3.4 mGy.…”
Section: Prior Studies On Diagnostic Accuracy Of Dual-energy Low-radi...mentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Our study protocol closely follows the ultra-low dose approach of a study by Naidu et al [26]. They achieved comparable image quality and endoleak detection accuracy with a single-energy CT protocol in 20 patients at 100 kV p with model-based iterative reconstruction in delayed phase after injection of 2.2 mL/kg of 350 mg I/mL contrast medium resulting in a mean CTDI vol of 3.4 mGy.…”
Section: Prior Studies On Diagnostic Accuracy Of Dual-energy Low-radi...mentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Endoleaks were detected equally in 5 of the 20 patients in their study by both standard-dose (120 kVp) CTA and low-dose (100 kVp) CTA. [ 24 ]. However, the standard iodine dose was used in the abovementioned studies [ 23 , 24 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%