We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This work aims to evaluate the effect of Hitachi 16-slice scanner reconstruction filters on Hounsfield unit (HU) variations. In the literature, there is a lack of information from a wide variety of scanners in this regard. In addition, not all studies have investigated the effect of reconstruction filters on HU in an exhaustive way.
Methods:
The computerised imaging reference system electron density phantom (model 062M) was scanned with different substitute materials of different density from Hitachi 16-slice computed tomography. The raw images were obtained with four tube voltage settings: 80 kVp, 100 kVp, 120 kVp and 140 kVp. The raw images for each energy level were then reconstructed using different reconstruction filters.
Results:
The HU values of dense bone were significantly different when changing the reconstruction filters without beam hardening correction (BHC). Nevertheless, when selecting the BHC, this variation decreases heavily for 80 kVp and decreases slightly for 140 kVp, but it remains outside the tolerance of ±50 HU. However, for 100 kVp and 120 kVp, the differences in HU values become within the tolerances indicated for dense bone.
Conclusions:
Changing image reconstruction filters during a dosimetric scan had a significant effect on HU in dense bone. Therefore, it is recommended to evaluate this effect during the commissioning phase. As a result, this study provides a methodology to comprehensively investigate the effect of reconstruction filters on HU.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.