Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
3D-MIP images of phantom stents at various concentrations of contrast medium.
- Fig 2.
CNR of a phantom stent imaged at various settings (10- or 20-second acquisition time, 1 × 1 or 2 × 2 binning) plotted against increasing concentrations of contrast medium.
- Fig 3.
FWHM values of the phantom stent images obtained in saline at various settings (10- or 20-second acquisition time; 1 × 1 or 2 × 2 binning).
- Fig 4.
CNR of stent struts imaged with CBCT with a 15% concentration of contrast medium in groups A and B.
- Fig 5.
FWHM of the stent strut on CBCT images with a 15% concentration of contrast medium in groups A and B.
- Fig 6.
The DAP values in groups A and B.
- Fig 7.
3D-MIP images of 2 clinical cases imaged with different acquisition times and binning settings and a 15% concentration of contrast medium.
Tables
10-Second CBCT 20-Second CBCT Exposure parameters Tube voltage 70 kV 70 kV Pulse width 12.5 ms 12.5 ms Radiation exposure 1.20 μGy/pulse 1.20 μGy/pulse Binning/focus size/FOV 1 × 1/0.4 mm/22 cm 2 × 2/0.6 mm/42 cm Acquisition parameters Angle step 0.8°/frame 0.4°/frame Angle 200° 200° Total frame 250 500 Matrix size/binning 9602/2 × 2 10242/1 × 1 Injection condition Injection rate 1.0 mL/s 1.0 mL/s Concentration of contrast medium 14% 14% X-ray delay time 4.5 seconds 4.5 seconds Injection time of contrast medium 14.5 seconds 24.5 seconds - Table 2:
P values for differences in contrast-to-noise ratios of phantom stent struts by acquisition time/binning level at various contrast medium concentrations
Acquisition Combination (Sec/Binning vs Sec/Binning) Concentration of Contrast Medium Just Saline 10% 15% 20% 10/1 × 1 vs 10/2 × 2 .9328 .5888 .2733 .2734 10/1 × 1 vs 20/1 × 1 .9419 .9828 .2595 .4224 10/1 × 1 vs 20/2 × 2 .0019 .9413 .6592 .2044 10/2 × 2 vs 20/1 × 1 .0257 .1573 .0088 .0145 10/2 × 2 vs 20/2 × 2 .9985 .8009 .2948 .5754 20/1 × 1 vs 20/2 × 2 .0568 .9481 .092 .0113 All numbers represent P values.
