Abstract Purpose To assess the efficacy of super-resolution deep learning reconstruction (SR-DLR) with motion reduction algorithm (SR-DLR-M) in mitigating aorta motion artifacts compared to SR-DLR and deep learning reconstruction with motion reduction algorithm (DLR-M). Materials and methods This retrospective study included 86 patients (mean age, 65.0 ± 14.1 years; 53 males) who underwent contrast-enhanced CT including the chest region. CT images were reconstructed with SR-DLR-M, SR-DLR, and DLR-M. Circular or ovoid regions of interest were placed on the aorta, and the standard deviation of the CT attenuation was recorded as quantitative noise. From the CT attenuation profile along a line region of interest that intersected the left common carotid artery wall, edge rise slope and edge rise distance were calculated. Two readers assessed the images based on artifact, sharpness, noise, structure depiction, and diagnostic acceptability (for aortic dissection). Results Quantitative noise was 7.4/5.4/8.3 Hounsfield unit (HU) in SR-DLR-M/SR-DLR/DLR-M. Significant differences were observed between SR-DLR-M vs. SR-DLR and DLR-M ( p < 0.001). Edge rise slope and edge rise distance were 107.1/108.8/85.8 HU/mm and 1.6/1.5/2.0 mm, respectively, in SR-DLR-M/SR-DLR/DLR-M. Statistically significant differences were detected between SR-DLR-M vs. DLR-M ( p ≤ 0.001 for both). Two readers scored artifacts in SR-DLR-M as significantly better than those in SR-DLR ( p < 0.001). Scores for sharpness, noise, and structure depiction in SR-DLR-M were significantly better than those in DLR-M ( p ≤ 0.005). Diagnostic acceptability in SR-DLR-M was significantly better than that in SR-DLR and DLR-M ( p < 0.001). Conclusions SR-DLR-M provided significantly better CT images in diagnosing aortic dissection compared to SR-DLR and DLR-M.
Yasaka et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: