T M Shepherd1, C P Hess, C T Chin, R Gould, W P Dillon. 1. Neuroradiology Division, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 94143-0628, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CT guidance may improve precision for diagnostic and therapeutic spinal injections, but it can increase patient radiation dose. This study examined the impact of reducing tube current on patient radiation exposure and the technical success for these procedures, by using axial acquisitions for short scan lengths and eliminating nonessential imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board approved retrospective analysis of records from 100 consecutive outpatients undergoing spinal injections for pain before and after the CT protocol modification to reduce radiation dose. Data collected included patient age and sex, response to injection, number of sites and spinal levels treated, injection type, performing physician, CT acquisition method, number of imaging series, tube current, scan length, and DLP. RESULTS: Image contrast was reduced with the low-dose protocol, but this did not affect technical success or immediate pain relief. Mean DLP for all procedures decreased from 1458 ± 1022 to 199 ± 101 mGy · cm (P < .001). The range of radiologist-dependent DLP per procedure also was reduced significantly with the modified protocol. Selective nerve root blocks, lumbar injections, multiple injection sites, and the lack of prior imaging were each associated with a slightly higher DLP (<50 mGy · cm). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation to patients undergoing CT-guided spinal injections can be decreased significantly without affecting outcome by reducing tube current, using axial acquisitions for short scan lengths, and eliminating nonessential imaging guidance. These measures also decrease variability in radiation doses between different practitioners and should be useful for other CT-guided procedures in radiology.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CT guidance may improve precision for diagnostic and therapeutic spinal injections, but it can increase patient radiation dose. This study examined the impact of reducing tube current on patient radiation exposure and the technical success for these procedures, by using axial acquisitions for short scan lengths and eliminating nonessential imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board approved retrospective analysis of records from 100 consecutive outpatients undergoing spinal injections for pain before and after the CT protocol modification to reduce radiation dose. Data collected included patient age and sex, response to injection, number of sites and spinal levels treated, injection type, performing physician, CT acquisition method, number of imaging series, tube current, scan length, and DLP. RESULTS: Image contrast was reduced with the low-dose protocol, but this did not affect technical success or immediate pain relief. Mean DLP for all procedures decreased from 1458 ± 1022 to 199 ± 101 mGy · cm (P < .001). The range of radiologist-dependent DLP per procedure also was reduced significantly with the modified protocol. Selective nerve root blocks, lumbar injections, multiple injection sites, and the lack of prior imaging were each associated with a slightly higher DLP (<50 mGy · cm). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation to patients undergoing CT-guided spinal injections can be decreased significantly without affecting outcome by reducing tube current, using axial acquisitions for short scan lengths, and eliminating nonessential imaging guidance. These measures also decrease variability in radiation doses between different practitioners and should be useful for other CT-guided procedures in radiology.
Authors: Willi A Kalender; Stefanie Buchenau; Paul Deak; Markus Kellermeier; Oliver Langner; Marcel van Straten; Sabrina Vollmar; Sylvia Wilharm Journal: Phys Med Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Sangroh Kim; Greta Toncheva; Colin Anderson-Evans; Billy K Huh; Linda Gray; Terry Yoshizumi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kristina T Flicek; Amy K Hara; Alvin C Silva; Qing Wu; Mary B Peter; C Daniel Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Alice B Smith; William P Dillon; Benison C Lau; Robert Gould; Francis R Verdun; Edward B Lopez; Max Wintermark Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K A Shpilberg; B N Delman; L N Tanenbaum; S J Esses; R Subramaniam; A H Doshi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T S Miller; K Fruauff; J Farinhas; D Pasquale; C Romano; A H Schoenfeld; A Brook Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jacob D Brown; Maythem Saeed; Loi Do; Joao Braz; Allan I Basbaum; Michael J Iadarola; David M Wilson; William P Dillon Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Sigal Trattner; Gregory D N Pearson; Cynthia Chin; Dianna D Cody; Rajiv Gupta; Christopher P Hess; Mannudeep K Kalra; James M Kofler; Mayil S Krishnam; Andrew J Einstein Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Kimberly G Kallianos; Brett M Elicker; Travis S Henry; Karen G Ordovas; Janet Nguyen; David M Naeger Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: J S Schauberger; P G Kranz; K R Choudhury; J D Eastwood; L Gray; J K Hoang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 3.825