Systematic Radiation Dose Reduction in Cervical Spine CT of Human Cadaveric Specimens: How Low Can We Go?

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Daffner RH,
   3. Hackney DB

   . ACR Appropriateness Criteria on suspected spine trauma. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:762–75 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.08.006 pmid:17964500

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Saketkhoo DD,
   3. Bhargavan M,
   4. Sunshine JH, et al

   . Emergency department image interpretation services at private community hospitals. Radiology 2004;231:190–97 doi:10.1148/radiol.2311030307 pmid:15068948

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Mower WR,
   3. Hoffman JR,
   4. Pollack CV Jr., et al

   ; NEXUS Group. Use of plain radiography to screen for cervical spine injuries. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:1–7 doi:10.1067/mem.2001.115946 pmid:11423803

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Jaju A,
   3. Shaw HL,
   4. Don S, et al

   . ALARA: impact of practice quality improvement initiative on dose reduction in pediatric voiding cystourethrogram. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:886–93 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13492 pmid:26397340

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Ghetti C,
   3. Palleri F,
   4. Serreli G, et al

   . Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013;14:4347 doi:10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4347 pmid:23835395

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Worrall JC,
   3. Jama S,
   4. Stiell IG

   . Radiation doses to emergency department patients undergoing computed tomography. CJEM 2014;16:477–84 doi:10.1017/S1481803500003493 pmid:25358279

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Becce F,
   3. Ben Salah Y,
   4. Verdun FR, et al

   . Computed tomography of the cervical spine: comparison of image quality between a standard-dose and a low-dose protocol using filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42:937–45 doi:10.1007/s00256-013-1576-9 pmid:23359034

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Moscariello A,
   3. Takx RA,
   4. Schoepf UJ, et al

   . Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique-comparison with traditional filtered back-projection. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2130–38 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2164-9 pmid:21611758

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Winklehner A,
   3. Karlo C,
   4. Puippe G, et al

   . Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2521–26 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2227-y pmid:21822785

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Deak PD,
    3. Smal Y,
    4. Kalender WA

    . Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 2010;257:158–66 doi:10.1148/radiol.10100047 pmid:20851940

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Schindera ST,
    3. Diedrichsen L,
    4. Müller HC, et al

    . Iterative reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose in a phantom study. Radiology 2011;260:454–62 doi:10.1148/radiol.11102217 pmid:21493795

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Willemink MJ,
    3. Leiner T,
    4. de Jong PA, et al

    . Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1632–42 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2764-z pmid:23322411

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Gervaise A,
    3. Osemont B,
    4. Lecocq S, et al

    . CT image quality improvement using Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 2012;22:295–301 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2271-7 pmid:21927791

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Pan X,
    3. Sidky EY,
    4. Vannier M

    . Why do commercial CT scanners still employ traditional, filtered back-projection for image reconstruction? Inverse Probl 2009;25:1230009 pmid:20376330

    PubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Nelson RC,
    3. Feuerlein S,
    4. Boll DT

    . New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5:286–92 doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2011.07.001 pmid:21875826

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Wirth S,
    3. Meindl T,
    4. Treitl M, et al

    . Comparison of different patient positioning strategies to minimize shoulder girdle artifacts in head and neck CT. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1757–62 doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0168-7 pmid:16552509

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Mulkens TH,
    3. Marchal P,
    4. Daineffe S, et al

    . Comparison of low-dose with standard-dose multidetector CT in cervical spine trauma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1444–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0608 pmid:17846188

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Kranz PG,
    3. Wylie JD,
    4. Hoang JK, et al

    . Effect of the CT table strap on radiation exposure and image quality during cervical spine CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1870–76 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4074 pmid:25059701

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Geyer LL,
    3. Körner M,
    4. Hempel R, et al

    . Evaluation of a dedicated MDCT protocol using iterative image reconstruction after cervical spine trauma. Clin Radiol 2013;68:e391–396 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2012.11.025 pmid:23537577

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Woodring JH,
    3. Lee C

    . Limitations of cervical radiography in the evaluation of acute cervical trauma. J Trauma 1993;34:32–39 doi:10.1097/00005373-199301000-00006 pmid:8437193

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Acheson MB,
    3. Livingston RR,
    4. Richardson ML, et al

    . High-resolution CT scanning in the evaluation of cervical spine fractures: comparison with plain film examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;148:1179–85 doi:10.2214/ajr.148.6.1179 pmid:3495145

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Hoang JK,
    3. Yoshizumi TT,
    4. Nguyen G, et al

    . Variation in tube voltage for adult neck MDCT: effect on radiation dose and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:621–27 doi:10.2214/AJR.11.6831 pmid:22358002

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Gnannt R,
    3. Winklehner A,
    4. Goetti R, et al

    . Low kilovoltage CT of the neck with 70 kVp: comparison with a standard protocol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1014–19 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2910 pmid:22300930

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Gleeson TG,
    3. Byrne B,
    4. Kenny P, et al

    . Image quality in low-dose multidetector computed tomography: a pilot study to assess feasibility and dose optimization in whole-body bone imaging. Can Assoc Radiol J 2010;61:258–64 doi:10.1016/j.carj.2010.01.003 pmid:20189749

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Fonseca AA,
    3. Cherubini K,
    4. Veeck EB, et al

    . Effect of 10% formalin on radiographic optical density of bone specimens. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:137–41 doi:10.1259/dmfr/18109064 pmid:18316504

    Abstract/FREE Full Text