Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34993078›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Comparison of acquisition and iterative reconstruction parameters in abdominal computed tomography-guided procedures: a phantom study.

Julien Frandon, Philippe Akessoul, Aymeric Hamard, Edinaud Bezandry, Romaric Loffroy, Takieddine Addala, Martin M Bertrand, Jean-Paul Beregi, Joël Greffier

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Julien FrandonDepartment of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Philippe AkessoulDepartment of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Aymeric HamardDepartment of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Edinaud BezandryDepartment of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Romaric LoffroyDepartment of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Image-Guided Therapy Center, ImViA Laboratory-EA 7535, François-Mitterrand University Hospital, Dijon, France.
Takieddine AddalaDepartment of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Martin M BertrandDigestive Surgery Department, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Jean-Paul BeregiDepartment of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Joël GreffierDepartment of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany computed tomography (CT) navigation systems have been developed to help radiologists improve the accuracy and safety of the procedure. We evaluated the accuracy of one CT computer-assisted guided procedure with different reduction dose protocols.

methodsA total of 128 punctures were randomly made by two operators on two different anthropomorphic phantoms. The tube voltage was fixed to 100 kVp. Tube currents (mAs) were defined to obtain 4 dose levels: 180 mAs (D1.00), 90 mAs (D0.50), 45 mAs (D0.25) and 15 mAs (D0.10) with respective volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 7.02, 3.52, 1.75 and 0.59 mGy. The raw data were reconstructed using level 2 of advanced model-based iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) (A2) for D1.00, A3 for D0.50, A4 for D0.25 and A5 for D0.10. Two 12-mm targets per phantom were selected. The mean Euclidean distance (EuD) between the tip of the needle and the isocenter of the target was measured for each puncture. The different measures were compared by paired Student's

resultsThe mean EuD was 7.0±3.1 mm for the 128 punctures performed. Regardless of which phantom was considered, no significant difference in accuracy occurred between the 4 dose levels, which were 7.1±3.5 mm for D1.00; 7.1±3.1 mm for D0.50; 7.2±3.0 mm for D0.25 and 6.6±2.6 mm for D0.10.

conclusionsAbdominal CT-guided procedures, using computer-assisted navigation and iterative reconstruction algorithms, allow precise punctures on anthropomorphic phantoms with a dose reduction of -92% compared to a standard protocol.

Indexed as

computer-assistedimage reconstructionImaging guided biopsylow-dose computed tomography (low-dose CT)noise reduction

Identifiers

PMID34993078
PMCPMC8666743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.