English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of virtual noncalcium images from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT), using dual-source CT (DSCT). Forty-one patients suspected of having traumatic vertebral fractures who underwent DSCT with virtual non-calcium imaging were included in this study. For comparison, radiation exposure was measured in 11 patients receiving DSCT with a radiation exposure reduction system, and in 14 patients receiving conventional multi-detector-row CT scans. Radiation exposure, detectability of fractures and visual image quality were assessed and compared between the groups. Radiation exposure was less with the non-calcium image than with the other methods. The CT number (x-ray absorption coef cient of a pixel in a CT) for the affected vertebrae was signi cantly higher than for normal vertebrae. When the threshold of the CT number was determined as -25.6 HU, the sensitivity was 100% and speci city was 92.6% . In most cases, the quality of the virtual non-calcium image was inferior to the fat-suppressed T2-weighted magnetic resonance images. The virtual noncalcium image technique obtained using DSCT can be a useful part of the clinical diagnosis of vertebral fractures.

showa university journal of medical sciences

Assessment of the Diagnostic Value and Image Quality of Dual-source Computed Tomography in Lumbar Vertebral Fractures: Comparison with Magnetic Resonance Imaging