Copyrights © 2016 The Korean Society of Radiology
417
Erratum
pISSN 1738-2637 / eISSN 2288-2928 J Korean Soc Radiol 2016;74(6):417-418 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2016.74.6.417
J Korean Soc Radiol 2016;74(5):291-298 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2016.74.5.291
The publisher wishes to apologize for incorrectly displaying Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5.
So corrected figures should be as follows;
Coronary Stent on Coronary CT Angiography: Assessment with Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction Technique
모델기반 반복재구성법을 이용한 관상동맥 스텐트의 컴퓨터단층촬영 평가
Eunchae Lee, MD, Yeo Koon Kim, MD, Eun Ju Chun, MD, Sang Il Choi, MD*
Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00
Noise_AA (HU)
FBP ASIR MBIR
Reconstruction_method
Fig. 1. Image noise measured in the ascending aorta is significantly lower by MBIR, as compared to ASIR and FBP (all p < 0.001).
AA = ascending aorta, ASIR = adaptive statistical iterative reconstruc- tion, FBP = filtered back projection, HU = Hounsfield units, MBIR = mod- el-based iterative reconstruction
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Noise_LM (HU)
FBP ASIR MBIR
Reconstruction_method
Fig. 2. Image noise measured in the left main coronary artery is sig- nificantly lower by MBIR, as compared to ASIR and FBP (p < 0.001, p = 0.001).
ASIR = adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, FBP = filtered back projection, HU = Hounsfield units, LM = left main coronary artery, MBIR = model-based iterative reconstruction
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distri-bution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
418
Erratum
jksronline.org
J Korean Soc Radiol 2016;74(6):417-418 Fig. 4. Image noise measured in the stent is significantly lower by
MBIR, as compared to ASIR and FBP (all p < 0.001).
ASIR = adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, FBP = filtered back projection, HU = Hounsfield units, MBIR = model-based iterative re- construction
100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00
Noise_stent (HU)
FBP ASIR MBIR
Reconstruction_method
Fig. 5. In-stent diameters are significantly higher by MBIR, as com- pared to ASIR and FBP, which means that the reduction of blooming artifact is better by MBIR (p < 0.001, p = 0.001) than ASIR and FBP.
ASIR = adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, FBP = filtered back projection, HU = Hounsfield units, MBIR = model-based iterative re- construction
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Diameter_stent (HU)
FBP ASIR MBIR
Reconstruction_method
