Literature DB >> 23017196

Computed tomography scout views vs. conventional radiography in body-packers - delineation of body-packs and radiation dose in a porcine model.

Edvard Ziegeler1, Jochen M Grimm, Stefan Wirth, Michael Uhl, Maximilian F Reiser, Michael K Scherr.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare abdominal computed tomography (CT) scout views with conventional radiography regarding radiation dose and delineation of drug packages in a porcine body-packer model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine samples of illicit drugs packed in ovoid plastic containers were consecutively placed in the rectum of a 121.5 kg pig cadaver. Antero-posterior and lateral scout views were obtained at 120 kVp and 80 mA, 150 mA and 200 mA, respectively, using a 64-row MDCT. Scout views were compared with conventional abdominal antero-posterior radiographs (77 kV and 106 ± 13 mAs). Visibility of three body pack characteristics (wrapping, content, shape) was rated independently by two radiologists and summarized to a delineation score ranging from 0 to 9 with a score ≥ 6 representing sufficient delineation. Mean delineation scores were calculated for each conventional radiography and single plane scout view separately and for a combined rating of antero-posterior and lateral scout views.
RESULTS: Even the lowest single plane scout view delineation score (5.3 ± 2.0 for 80 mA lateral; 0.4 mSv; sensitivity=44%) was significantly higher than for conventional radiographs (3.1 ± 2.5, p<0.001; 2.4 ± 0.3 mSv; sensitivity=11%). Combined reading of antero-posterior and lateral scout views 80 mA yielded sufficient delineation (6.2 ± 1.4; 0.8 mSv; sensitivity=56%).
CONCLUSIONS: All CT scout views showed significantly better delineation ratings and sensitivity than conventional radiographs. Scout views in two planes at 80 mA provided a sufficient level of delineation and a sensitivity five times higher than conventional radiography at less than one third of the radiation dose. In case of diagnostic insecurity, CT can be performed without additional logistical effort.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23017196     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.06.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  6 in total

Review 1.  The role of radiology in diagnosis and management of drug mules: an update with new challenges and new diagnostic tools.

Authors:  Mesut Bulakci; Ferhat Cengel
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Differentiation of heroin and cocaine using dual-energy CT-an experimental study.

Authors:  Jochen Grimm; Ramona Wudy; Edvard Ziegeler; Stefan Wirth; Michael Uhl; Maximilian F Reiser; Michael Scherr
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 2.686

3.  Radiological and practical aspects of body packing.

Authors:  A Pinto; A Reginelli; F Pinto; G Sica; M Scaglione; F H Berger; L Romano; L Brunese
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Walking on thin ice! Identifying methamphetamine "drug mules" on digital plain radiography.

Authors:  S N Abdul Rashid; S B Mohamad Saini; S Abdul Hamid; S J Muhammad; R Mahmud; M J Thali; P M Flach
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Low-dose CT in body-packers: delineation of body packs and radiation dose in a porcine model.

Authors:  Michael K Scherr; Oliver Peschel; Jochen M Grimm; Edvard Ziegeler; Michael Uhl; Lucas L Geyer; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan Wirth
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 2.007

6.  Added value of lung window in detecting drug mules on non-contrast abdominal computed tomography.

Authors:  Hooman Bahrami-Motlagh; Fatemeh Vakilian; Hossein Hassanian-Moghaddam; Ramin Pourghorban
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 3.469

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.