Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Biomed+Res+Int 2015 ; 2015 (ä): ä Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure #MMPMID25874213
Paul J; Chacko A; Farhang M; Kamali S; Tavanania M; Vogl T; Panahi B
Biomed Res Int 2015[]; 2015 (ä): ä PMID25874213show ga
Objective. To evaluate two ultrafast cone-beam CT (UF-CBCT) imaging protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters regarding image quality and required contrast media during image-guided hepatic transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods. In 80 patients (male: 46, female: 34; mean age: 56.8 years; range: 33?83) UF-CBCT was performed during TACE for intraprocedural guidance. Imaging was performed using two ultrafast CBCT acquisition protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters (imaging protocol 1: acquisition time 2.54?s, and contrast 6?mL with 3?s delay; imaging protocol 2: acquisition time 2.72?s, and contrast 7?mL with 6?s delay). Image evaluation was performed with both qualitative and quantitative methods. Contrast injection volume and dose parameters were compared using values from the literature. Results. Imaging protocol 2 provided significantly better (P < 0.05) image quality than protocol 1 at the cost of slightly higher contrast load and patient dose. Imaging protocol 1 provided good contrast perfusion but it mostly failed to delineate the tumors (P < 0.05). On the contrary, imaging protocol 2 showed excellent enhancement of hepatic parenchyma, tumor, and feeding vessels. Conclusion. Tumor delineation, visualization of hepatic parenchyma, and feeding vessels are clearly possible using imaging protocol 2 with ultrafast CBCT imaging. A reduction of required contrast volume and patient dose were achieved due to the ultrafast CBCT imaging.