Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the image quality of low-dose computed tomographic (CT) urography using adaptive iterative dose reduction 3-dimensional (AIDR 3D) compared with routine-dose CT using filtered back projection (FBP).
Methods: Thirty patients underwent low- and routine-dose CT scans in the nephrographic and excretory phases of CT urography. Low-dose CT was reconstructed with AIDR 3D, and routine-dose CT was reconstructed with FBP. In quantitative analyses, image noises were measured on the renal cortex, aorta, retroperitoneal fat, and psoas muscle in both CT scans and compared. Qualitative analyses of the urinary system were performed in both CT scans and compared. These results were compared on the basis of the body mass index (BMI) of the patients. The CT dose index (CTDIvol) was measured, and the dose reduction was calculated.
Results: In quantitative analyses, image noises in all organs on low-dose CT were less than those on routine-dose CT in both phases independently of the patient’s BMI. There were no statistical differences between low- and routine-dose CT for diagnostic acceptability on all urinary systems in both phases independently of the patient’s BMI. The average CTDIvol on routine-dose CT was 14.5 mGy in the nephrographic phase and 9.2 mGy in the excretory phase. The average CTDIvol on low-dose CT was 4.2 mGy in the nephrographic phase and 2.7 mGy in the excretory phase.
Conclusions: Low-dose CT urography using AIDR 3D can offer diagnostic acceptability comparable with routine-dose CT urography with FBP with approximately 70% dose reduction.
From the *Department of Radiology, Osaka Medical College; †Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Kinki University; and ‡Department of Urology, Osaka Medical College, Osaka, Japan.
Received for publication November 5, 2012; accepted December 10, 2012.
Reprints: Hiroshi Juri, MD, Department of Radiology, Osaka Medical College, 2-7, Daigakumachi, Takatsuki, Osaka 569-8686, Japan (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
There is no conflict of interest in our original article.