Image Quality and Dose Comparison of Single-Energy CT (SECT) and Dual-Energy CT (DECT).

Ramin Ghasemi Shayan,Fakhrosadat Sajjadian,Maryam Oladghaffari,Mona Fazel Ghaziyani

doi:10.1155/2020/1403957

Ramin Ghasemi Shayan, Fakhrosadat Sajjadian + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1403957

Copy DOI

Abstract

CT and its comprehensive usage have become one of the most indispensable components in medical field especially in the diagnosis of several diseases. SECT and DECT have developed CT diagnostic potentials in several means. In this review article we have discussed the basic principles of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography and their important physical differences which can cause better diagnostic evaluation. Moreover, different organs diagnostic evaluations through single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography have been discussed. Conventional or single-energy CT (SECT) uses a single polychromatic X-ray beam (ranging from 70 to 140 kVp with a standard of 120 kVp) emitted from a single source and received by a single detector. The concept of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is almost as old as the CT technology itself; DECT initially required substantially higher radiation doses (nearly two times higher than those employed in single-energy CT) and presented problems associated with spatial misregistration of the two different kV image datasets between the two separate acquisitions. The basic principles of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography and their important physical differences can cause better diagnostic evaluation. Moreover, different organs diagnostic evaluations through single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography have been discussed. According to diverse data and statistics it is controversial to definitely indicate the accurate comparison of image quality and dose amount.

Highlights

Computerized tomography (CT) has been hailed as a revolutionary diagnostic imaging tool in medicine ever since its introduction in the early 1970s [1]. e arrival of 64-slice CT systems has further validated CT imaging of the heart in clinical routine and the achieved examination times of 5–10 s lead to short breath hold times, even for patients with dyspnea [2, 3]. ere are diverse differences between conventional radiography and computerized tomography
Computerized Tomography (CT) improves upon conventional 2D radiography by producing 3D cross-sectional images of an object from flat X-ray images. e increasing speed of CT along with developments in low-contrast detectability and image quality have allowed the technique to be much more vigorous and this, in turn, has enabled CT to become a majority in medical care throughout the world [4]
Unlike X-ray radiography, the detectors of the CT scanner do not produce an image; they measure the transmission of a thin beam (1–10 mm) of X-rays through a full scan of the body. e image of that section is taken from different angles which allows retrieving the information on the depth

Summary

Introduction

Computerized tomography (CT) has been hailed as a revolutionary diagnostic imaging tool in medicine ever since its introduction in the early 1970s [1]. e arrival of 64-slice CT systems has further validated CT imaging of the heart in clinical routine and the achieved examination times of 5–10 s lead to short breath hold times, even for patients with dyspnea [2, 3]. ere are diverse differences between conventional radiography and computerized tomography. The concept of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is almost as old as the CT technology itself, DECT initially required substantially higher radiation doses (nearly two times higher than that employed in singleenergy CT) and presented problems associated with spatial misregistration of the two different kV image datasets between the two separate acquisitions [9, 10]. In this regard, dual-energy CT introduced as a first generation dual-source CT system which can develop material variation by using two different X-ray energy spectra [7, 11]. Is review attempts to discuss the basic and fundamental factors of image formation in single- and dual-energy CT and to compare the image quality and dose in various clinical organs

Basic Principles of Image Formation

Conclusion

Findings

Conflicts of Interest