ArticleScientific reports2025
Ultra-high-resolution imaging of intracranial flow diverters with photon counting CT: A comparative phantom study with flat-panel CT.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flow diverters are a crucial element in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. However, the optimal non-invasive follow-up imaging modality, particularly for the detection of in-stent stenosis, remains uncertain. This study aims to compare the performance of photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) in ultra-high-resolution (UHR) mode with flat-panel CT (FP-CT) for the evaluation of intracranial flow diverters. A phantom model for intracranial vessels was used to evaluate 15 flow diverters of various sizes and designs. Imaging was performed using both PCD-CT and FP-CT. Qualitative assessment of the stent lumen was conducted by three experienced neuroradiologists using a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative analysis included measurements of lumen area, contrast to noise ratio and signal to noise ratio. FP-CT provided a significantly larger assessable stent lumen than PCD-CT at all dose levels (p < 0.05), with no significant differences between PCD-CT dose levels (p = 0.999). Increasing PCD-CT dose did not improve lumen visualization. SNR and CNR increased with PCD-CT dose (p < 0.001), peaking at CTDI 20, but showed diminishing returns beyond CTDI 10. Flow diverter diameter correlated positively with SNR and CNR (p < 0.05). Subjective image quality improved with PCD-CT dose (p < 0.001) but showed no significant difference beyond 10 mGy (p > 0.05). FRED devices had the lowest ratings, independent of imaging modality (p = 0.80). Our study demonstrated that while FP-CT provided superior visualization of the flow diverter lumen in a head phantom vessel model, subjective assessability ratings were comparable between FP-CT and PCD-CT when evaluated by experienced readers. PCD-CT at a CTDIvol of 10 mGy offered the best balance between image quality and radiation dose, making it a viable alternative for post-interventional assessment of flow diverters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.