IMR Case of
the year

Kontakta oss

Hur kan vi hjälpa dig?

Contact information

* This field is mandatory

Country

Förnamn*

First name (phonetic)

Efternamn*

Last name (phonetic)

Salutation

Academic title

E-postadress*

Business phone

Company*

Job title

Industry

Function

Specialty

Department

State or Province

City

Address

Zip or Postal Code

By specifying your reason for contact we will be able to provide you with a better service.

Follow up information

Preferred method of contact

Best time to call

Estimated time of purchase

Product of interest

Comments

What is cross border data transfer?

I agree on cross-border transfer of personal information.

CEE specific legal checkbox

Jag skulle vilja få marknadsföringsrelaterad elektronisk information om Philips produkter, tjänster, evenemang och kampanjer som kan vara relevant för mig baserat på mina användarpreferenser och beteende.

Final CEE consent

2015 IMR Case of the year

Clinicians from across the globe took part in the 2015 Case of the Year Contest to show the outstanding results they're accomplishing using Philips IMR (Iterative Model Reconstruction). Cases* were reviewed by a panel of medical professionals. See our “Meet the judges” area.

IMR is an image reconstruction solution that has set a new direction in CT image quality with industry-leading low-contrast resolution and virtually noise-free images. Innovations in hardware and the reconstruction algorithm result in a reconstruction speed – less than

three minutes for the majority of reference protocols – that allows model-based benefits to be achieved in even the most demanding applications.

Images created with:

Learn more about IMR

Winner: Non-contrast Pulmonary Embolism

Einstein Healthcare Network

United States

Dr. Terence Matalon, Dr. Thomas Reilly, & Team

“On a non-contrast CT chest, IMR allowed for improved visualization of hyper-dense thrombus in the pulmonary artery (pulmonary embolism). This was confirmed with subsequent contrast enhanced CT.”

Download winning submission

Parameters:

kVp: 120

mAs: 50

Scan length: 27.5 cm

Scan time: 2.2 sec

CTDIvol: 3.3 mGy

DLP: 90.7 (mGy*cm)

Scanner: iCT

kVp: 80

Dose: 1.7 mSv*

*AAPM Technical Report 96

Our finalists

Thank you to all those that took the time to submit their IMR cases* to show the world what they and Philips IMR are accomplishing in CT. We know that dose, image quality and diagnostic confidence matter in today’s challenging healthcare environment like never before, and we were excited to receive so many great cases illustrating the difference IMR can make in meeting these challenges.

Congratulations to the following finalists. Your work helps show the difference virtually noise-free images**, industry-leading low-contrast resolution, and low-dose scanning can make to impacting patient care.

NCCT KUB

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER)
India
Dr. Khandelwal & Team

“This is an exceptional IMR case as NCCT KUB was done at a radiation dose exposure (0.6 mSv) equivalent to Xray KUB and yet produced images with exquisite details. A tiny 3 mm calculus was seen in right kidney on IMR images  which was not seen on other imaging modalities (USG, KUB) as well as on images produced by standard reconstruction. Hence low dose CT with IMR benefited this case to a great extent.”

Download submission

Head & neck angiogram

Yonsei University College of Medicine - Severance Hospital
South Korea
Dr. Ho Jun Lee & Team

“Comparing FBP and IMR, especially in the shoulder area, you will see the removal of streak artifact. O-MAR with IMR can reduce dental artifact.”

Download submission

Emphysema / ground glass nodule

Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel
Belgium
Dr. Brussard & Team

“This scan with only half the dose as used in daily practice and reconstructed with IMR depicted the extent of the emphysema more clearly. The ground glass nodule showed a sharper delineation relative to the surrounding lung parenchyma on the second scan with half dose compared to the scan with full dose.”

Download submission

Triple rule out

Chungang University Hospital
South Korea
Dr. Jae Suung Seo, Dr. Sung Bin Park & Team

“PCTA (prospective coronary CTA) showed significantly improved subjective and objective image quality parameters for coronary vessels with IMR compared to FBP and iDose⁴. PCTA using 80KVp and IMR could be applicable in routine clinical setting with less radiation dose.”

Download submission

Pancreatic cancer

Seoul National University Hospital
South Korea
Dr. Jeong Min Lee & Team

“Pancreatic cancer on Chemotherapy (3 times f-u scanning). Reduced lesion size after CTx, better visibility in small lesion with IMR than FBP and iDose⁴. ”

Download submission

Ischaemic white matter disease, IMR vs MRI

Sydney Xray Bondi Junction
Australia
Dr. Sesel & Team

“IMR was capable of demonstrating the multiple lesions in the brain that was confirmed on the MRI scan. Nice improvement in image quality and compares well with MR.”

Download submission

Myocardial perfusion

Ehime University School of Medicine
Japan
Dr. Mochizuki & Team

“Due to detection of myocardial ischemic area in preoperative evaluation, Perfusion CT with IMR is able to detect it. We think that it might be possible to diagnosis with high accuracy, because Cardiac CT is able to assess morphology and function simultaneously. IMR can be used to conduct dynamic perfusion study with low radiation dose. It is possible to enhance contrast between ischemic and normal myocardium by using low-kV technique with IMR.”

Download submission

Pulmonary artery CTA

Hokkaido University Hospital
Japan
Hiroshi Arai & Team

“IMR images are very effective to understand the orientation of pulmonary vessels will be used during an operation. We achieved lower dose than the radiation dose of routine dose chest CT.”

Download submission

Aspiration of teeth

Federal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre
Russia
Dr. Gleb & Team

“Nice imaging of artificial teeth in the bronchus. With IMR we could create very demonstrative 3D model”

Download submission

Meet our judges

Entries were judged by the following panel of medical experts from across the globe.

Emmanuel Coche, MD, PhD

Head of Department of Radiology

Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc

Brussels, Belgium

Claudio Smuclovisky, MD, FACC, FSCCT

Director

SFMI Cardiovascular Institute

Holy Cross Hospital

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Kenneth Lau, MBBS, FRACR

Associate Professor

Head of CT and Thoracic Imaging

Monash Health

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

* Results from case studies are not predictive of results in other cases. Results in other cases may vary.

** Image noise as defined by IEC standard 61223-3-5. Image noise was assessed using reference body protocol, on a phantom. Data on file.