BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Z-axis automatic exposure control (AEC) technique automatically adjusts tube current based on size of body region scanned. The purpose of the current study was to compare diagnostic acceptability, noise, and radiation exposure of multidetector row CT (MDCT) of neck performed with z-axis AEC and with fixed current. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two study groups of 26 patients each underwent MDCT of neck using z-axis AEC with 8 noise index (NI), 150-440 mA, and 10 NI, 75-440 mA, respectively. A control group consisting of another 26 patients underwent MDCT of neck with fixed-current technique (300 mA). Objective noise and mean tube current-time products (mA . s) were recorded. Two radiologists evaluated images for diagnostic acceptability and subjective noise on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: All CT examinations of study and control groups were diagnostically acceptable, though objective noise was significantly more with z-axis AEC (shoulder: NI 8, 20.6 +/- 6.2 HU; NI 10, 22.2 +/- 4.6 HU) than with fixed current (16.2 +/- 6 HU) (P = .01). There was no significant difference between AEC and fixed current in diagnostic acceptability and subjective noise (P = .22-.42). AEC resulted in significant radiation dose reduction (NI 8, 186.3 +/- 20.5 mA . s; NI 10, 158.1 +/- 21.2 mA x s), compared with fixed current (235 +/- 21.8 mA x s). CONCLUSION: Z-axis AEC resulted in similar subjective noise and diagnostic acceptability, with radiation dose reduction of 21% for NI of 8 and 33% for NI of 10, respectively, for MDCT evaluation of neck, compared with those of fixed current technique.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Z-axis automatic exposure control (AEC) technique automatically adjusts tube current based on size of body region scanned. The purpose of the current study was to compare diagnostic acceptability, noise, and radiation exposure of multidetector row CT (MDCT) of neck performed with z-axis AEC and with fixed current. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two study groups of 26 patients each underwent MDCT of neck using z-axis AEC with 8 noise index (NI), 150-440 mA, and 10 NI, 75-440 mA, respectively. A control group consisting of another 26 patients underwent MDCT of neck with fixed-current technique (300 mA). Objective noise and mean tube current-time products (mA . s) were recorded. Two radiologists evaluated images for diagnostic acceptability and subjective noise on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: All CT examinations of study and control groups were diagnostically acceptable, though objective noise was significantly more with z-axis AEC (shoulder: NI 8, 20.6 +/- 6.2 HU; NI 10, 22.2 +/- 4.6 HU) than with fixed current (16.2 +/- 6 HU) (P = .01). There was no significant difference between AEC and fixed current in diagnostic acceptability and subjective noise (P = .22-.42). AEC resulted in significant radiation dose reduction (NI 8, 186.3 +/- 20.5 mA . s; NI 10, 158.1 +/- 21.2 mA x s), compared with fixed current (235 +/- 21.8 mA x s). CONCLUSION: Z-axis AEC resulted in similar subjective noise and diagnostic acceptability, with radiation dose reduction of 21% for NI of 8 and 33% for NI of 10, respectively, for MDCT evaluation of neck, compared with those of fixed current technique.
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Stefania Rizzo; Michael M Maher; Elkan F Halpern; Thomas L Toth; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Suzanne L Aquino Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Roy V D'Souza; Stefania Rizzo; Elkan F Halpern; Michael A Blake; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Srinivasa Prasad; Sanjay Saini; Michael A Blake; Jose Varghese; Elkan F Halpern; James H Thrall; James T Rhea Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Leena M Hamberg; Michael A Blake; Jo-Anne Shepard; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A M Tawfik; J M Kerl; A A Razek; R W Bauer; N E Nour-Eldin; T J Vogl; M G Mack Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: U K Udayasankar; K Braithwaite; M Arvaniti; D Tudorascu; W C Small; S Little; S Palasis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.825