Image Quality Evaluation for Brain Soft Tissue in Neuroendovascular Treatment by Dose-Reduction Mode of Dual-Axis “Butterfly” Scan

References

1. 1.↵
   1. van Rooij WJ,
   2. Sluzewski M,
   3. Beute GN, et al

   . Procedural complications of coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: incidence and risk factors in a consecutive series of 681 patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1498–501 pmid:16908567

   PubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. White PM,
   2. Gilmour JN,
   3. Weir NW, et al

   . AngioCT in the management of neurointerventional patients: a prospective, consecutive series with associated dosimetry and resolution data. Neuroradiology 2008;50:321–30 doi:10.1007/s00234-007-0339-5 pmid:18097656

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Nicholson P,
   2. Cancelliere NM,
   3. Bracken J, et al

   . Novel flat-panel cone-beam CT compared to multi-detector CT for assessment of acute ischemic stroke: a prospective study. Eur J Radiol 2021;138:109645 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109645 pmid:33725654

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Hosoo H,
   2. Ito Y,
   3. Marushima A, et al

   . Image quality improvements for brain soft tissue in neuro-endovascular treatments: a novel dual-axis “butterfly” trajectory for optimized cone-beam CT. Eur J Radiol 2023;160:110713 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110713 pmid:36716548

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Brenner D,
   2. Elliston C,
   3. Hall E, et al

   . Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:289–96 doi:10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289 pmid:11159059

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Cancelliere NM,
   2. Hummel E,
   3. van Nijnatten F, et al

   . The butterfly effect: improving brain cone-beam CT image artifacts for stroke assessment using a novel dual-axis trajectory. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;15:283–87 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018553 pmid:35478176

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Schomberg HA

   . Fourier-filtered backprojection algorithm for cone-beam CT. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Meeting on Fully Three-Dimentsional Image Reconstruction in Radiology and Nuclear Medicien. Salt Lake City, Utah. July 11–July 15, 2005.
8. 8.↵
   1. Joseph PM,
   2. Spital RD

   . A method for correcting bone induced artifacts in computed tomography scanners. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1978;2:100–08 doi:10.1097/00004728-197801000-00017 pmid:670461

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Nalcioglu O,
   2. Lou RY

   . Post-reconstruction method for beam hardening in computerised tomography. Phys Med Biol 1979;24:330–40] doi:10.1088/0031-9155/24/2/009 pmid:450974

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Barber PA,
    2. Demchuk AM,
    3. Zhang J, et al

    . Validity and reliability of a quantitative computed tomography score in predicting outcome of hyperacute stroke before thrombolytic therapy: ASPECTS Study Group—Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score. Lancet 2000;355:1670–74 doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02237-6 pmid:10905241

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Psychogios MN,
    2. Maier IL,
    3. Tsogkas I, et al

    . One-stop management of 230 consecutive acute stroke patients: report of procedural times and clinical outcome. J Clin Med 2019;8:2185 doi:10.3390/jcm8122185

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Psychogios MN,
    2. Behme D,
    3. Schregel K, et al

    . One-stop management of acute stroke patients: minimizing door-to-reperfusion times. Stroke 2017;48:3152–55 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018077 pmid:29018132

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Pfaff JA,
    2. Schönenberger S,
    3. Herweh C, et al

    . Direct transfer to angio-suite versus computed tomography-transit in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy: a randomized trial. Stroke 2020;51:2630–38 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029905 pmid:32772684

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Requena M,
    2. Olivé-Gadea M,
    3. Muchada M, et al

    . Direct to angiography suite without stopping for computed tomography imaging for patients with acute stroke: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2021;78:1099–107 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.2385 pmid:34338742

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Mohammaden MH,
    2. Doheim MF,
    3. Elfil M, et al

    . Direct to angiosuite versus conventional imaging in suspected large vessel occlusion: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2022;53:2478–87 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.038221 pmid:35593152

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Giorgi L,
    2. Durand P,
    3. Morin L, et al

    . Management and outcomes of neonatal arteriovenous brain malformations with cardiac failure: a 17 years’ experience in a tertiary referral center. J Pediatr 2020;218:85–91.e82 doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.090 pmid:31870606

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Berenstein A,
    2. Ortiz R,
    3. Niimi Y, et al

    . Endovascular management of arteriovenous malformations and other intracranial arteriovenous shunts in neonates, infants, and children. Childs Nerv Syst 2010;26:1345–58 doi:10.1007/s00381-010-1206-y pmid:20582421

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Petroulia VD,
    2. Kaesmacher J,
    3. Piechowiak EI, et al

    . Evaluation of sine spin flat detector CT imaging compared with multidetector CT. J Neurointerv Surg 2023;15:292–97 doi:10.1007/s00381-010-1206-y pmid:20582421

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Luecking H,
    2. Hoelter P,
    3. Lang S, et al

    . Change your angle of view: sinusoidal C-arm movement in cranial flat-panel CT to improve image quality. Clin Neuroradiol 2022;32:1109–15 doi:10.1007/s00062-022-01172-z pmid:35513553

    CrossRefPubMed