| Literature DB >> 21614244 |
S Ramanaidu1, Rb Sta Maria, Kh Ng, J George, G Kumar.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A study of radiation dose and image quality following changes to the tube potential (kVp) in paediatric chest radiography. MATERIALS ANDEntities:
Keywords: ESAK; chest x-ray; image quality; paediatric
Year: 2006 PMID: 21614244 PMCID: PMC3097638 DOI: 10.2349/biij.2.3.e35
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Imaging Interv J ISSN: 1823-5530
Criteria used to evaluate image quality
| A | Vascular pattern in central two-third of the lungs |
| B | Trachea and the proximal bronchi |
| C | Diaphragm and costo-pherinic angles |
| D | Retrocardiac lung and mediastinum |
Figure 1Range of Tube Potential Used By Various Hospitals During Paediatric Chest Radiography.
Patient data [mean ± standard deviation (range)] from both techniques
| Technique A | 15 | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 6.9 ± 1.7 | 68.3 ± 5.1 | 11.8 ± 1.3 |
| Technique B | 19 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 7.2 ± 1.7 | 69.0 ± 8.5 | 11.4 ± 1.1 |
| Technique A | 13 | 2.6 ± 0.7 | 12.2 ± 2.5 | 92.0± 8.5 | 13.5± 1.4 |
| Technique B | 19 | 2.6 ± 1.2 | 12.3 ± 3.3 | 91.4 ± 10.0 | 12.5 ±. 0.94 |
| Technique A | 9 | 7.6 ± 1.3 | 18.7 ± 8.0 | 117.7 ± 20.0 | 14.1± 1.2 |
| Technique B | 18 | 7.0 ± 1.4 | 19.2 ± 4.8 | 117.6 ± 11.2 | 13.8 ±. 1.0 |
| Technique A | 6 | 10.8 ± 1.7 | 25.6 ± 5.9 | 135.8 ± 5.9 | 15.7± 1.8 |
| Technique B | 10 | 11.3 ± 1.0 | 32.2 ± 5.8 | 142.0 ± 9.7 | 15.5 ± 1.8 |
Comparison of applied kVp, mAs and Entrance Surface Air Kerma (ESAK) between Technique A and Technique B
| Sample size | 15 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 19 | 19 |
| Mean | 47.9 | 4.7 | 0.27 | 61.2 | 1.81 | 0.21 |
| S.D | 5.4 | 0.8 | 0.05 | 1.30 | 0.30 | 0.08 |
| Min. | 45 | 1.7 | 0.18 | 60 | 1.10 | 0.04 |
| Max. | 62 | 5 | 0.36 | 64 | 2.20 | 0.34 |
| Sample size | 13 | 13 | 13 | 19 | 19 | 19 |
| Mean | 57.5 | 4.5 | 0.22 | 65.2 | 2.0 | 0.15 |
| S.D | 8.08 | 1.1 | 0.09 | 5.7 | 0.17 | 0.06 |
| Min. | 46 | 2 | 0.11 | 60 | 1.6 | 0.07 |
| Max. | 70 | 5 | 0.37 | 74 | 2.3 | 0.27 |
| Sample size | 9 | 9 | 9 | 18 | 18 | 18 |
| Mean | 63.9 | 4.1 | 0.18 | 73.1 | 1.9 | 0.09 |
| S.D | 7.4 | 1.6 | 0.11 | 2.5 | 0.22 | 0.04 |
| Min. | 47 | 2.0 | 0.05 | 62 | 1.5 | 0.03 |
| Max. | 72 | 6.0 | 0.39 | 70 | 2.3 | 0.17 |
| Sample size | 6 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Mean | 63.5 | 5.2 | 0.17 | 76.6 | 2.2 | 0.10 |
| S.D | 3.3 | 0.57 | 0.05 | 3.3 | 0.19 | 0.02 |
| Min. | 58 | 5.0 | 0.08 | 73 | 2.0 | 0.06 |
| Max. | 68 | 6.4 | 0.21 | 83 | 2.5 | 0.13 |
Figure 2Range of Entrance Surface Air Kerma (ESAK) within age sub-groups from both techniques.
Figure 3Relationship between Entrance Surface Air Kerma (ESAK) and applied tube potential.
Figure 4Relationship between Entrance Surface Air Kerma (ESAK) and AP thickness.
Figure 5Comparison of image scores for each criterion.
Comparison of optical density measurements between Technique A and Technique B
| Mediastinum | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.23 - 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 0.20 - 0.49 |
| Left lung | 1.48 | 0.56 | 0.76 - 2.33 | 1.56 | 0.45 | 0.66 - 2.42 |
| Right lung | 1.40 | 0.54 | 0.69 - 2.19 | 1.41 | 0.45 | 0.68 - 2.22 |