OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality on computed tomographic (CT) images acquired with filtered back-projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) techniques in CT kidney/ureter/bladder (KUB) examination.
METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent standard protocol CT KUB at our institution. The same raw data were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR and MBIR. Objective [mean image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for kidney and mean attenuation values of subcutaneous fat] and subjective image parameters (image noise, image contrast, overall visibility of kidneys/ureters/bladder, visibility of small structures, and overall diagnostic confidence) were assessed using a scoring system from 1 (best) to 5 (worst).
RESULTS: Objective image measurements revealed significantly less image noise and higher CNR and the same fat attenuation values for the MBIR technique (P < 0.05). MBIR scored best in all the subjective image parameters (P < 0.001) with averages ranging between 2.05-2.73 for MBIR, 2.95-3.10 for ASIR and 3.08-3.31 for FBP. No significant difference was observed between FBP and ASIR (P > 0.05), while there was a significant difference between ASIR vs. MBIR (P < 0.05). The mean effective dose was 3 mSv.
CONCLUSION: MBIR shows superior reduction in noise and improved image quality (both objective and subjective analysis) compared with ASIR and FBP CT KUB examinations.
Written by:
Vardhanabhuti V, Ilyas S, Gutteridge C, Freeman SJ, Roobottom CA. Are you the author?
Department of Radiology, Derriford Hospital, Derriford Road, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 8DH, UK.
Reference: Insights Imaging. 2013 Oct;4(5):661-9.
doi: 10.1007/s13244-013-0273-5
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 23929357
UroToday.com Stone Disease Section

This webpage is supported through an unrestricted educational grant from Bayer. Bayer is not involved in content development and the views expressed represent those of the patient and physician contributors.

