Shannon Fritz1, A Kyle Jones. 1. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., Houston, TX, 77030, USA, shannon.fritz@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric radiography presents unique challenges in balancing image quality and patient dose. Removing the anti-scatter grid reduces patient dose but also reduces image contrast. The benefit of using an anti-scatter grid decreases with decreasing patient size. OBJECTIVE: To determine patient thickness thresholds for anti-scatter grid use by comparing scatter-to-primary ratio for progressively thinner patients without a grid to the scatter-to-primary ratio for a standard adult patient with a grid. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used Solid Water™ phantoms ranging in thickness from 7 cm to 16 cm to simulate pediatric abdomens. The scatter-to-primary ratio without a grid was measured for each thickness at 60 kVp, 70 kVp and 80 kVp for X-ray fields of view (FOV) of 378 cm(2), 690 cm(2) and 1,175 cm(2) using indirect digital radiography (iDR) and computed radiography (CR). We determined thresholds for anti-scatter grid use by comparing the intersection of a fit of scatter-to-primary ratio versus patient thickness with a standard adult scatter-to-primary ratio measured for a 23-cm phantom thickness at 80 kVp with an anti-scatter grid. Dose area product (DAP) was also calculated. RESULTS: The scatter-to-primary ratio depended strongly on FOV and weakly on kVp; however DAP increased with decreasing kVp. Threshold thicknesses for grid use varied from 5 cm for a 14 × 17-cm FOV using iDR to 12 cm for an 8 × 10-cm FOV using computed radiography. CONCLUSIONS: Removing the anti-scatter grid for small patients reduces patient dose without a substantial increase in scatter-to-primary ratio when the FOV is restricted appropriately. Radiologic technologists should base anti-scatter grid use on patient thickness and FOV rather than age.
BACKGROUND: Pediatric radiography presents unique challenges in balancing image quality and patient dose. Removing the anti-scatter grid reduces patient dose but also reduces image contrast. The benefit of using an anti-scatter grid decreases with decreasing patient size. OBJECTIVE: To determine patient thickness thresholds for anti-scatter grid use by comparing scatter-to-primary ratio for progressively thinner patients without a grid to the scatter-to-primary ratio for a standard adult patient with a grid. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used Solid Water™ phantoms ranging in thickness from 7 cm to 16 cm to simulate pediatric abdomens. The scatter-to-primary ratio without a grid was measured for each thickness at 60 kVp, 70 kVp and 80 kVp for X-ray fields of view (FOV) of 378 cm(2), 690 cm(2) and 1,175 cm(2) using indirect digital radiography (iDR) and computed radiography (CR). We determined thresholds for anti-scatter grid use by comparing the intersection of a fit of scatter-to-primary ratio versus patient thickness with a standard adult scatter-to-primary ratio measured for a 23-cm phantom thickness at 80 kVp with an anti-scatter grid. Dose area product (DAP) was also calculated. RESULTS: The scatter-to-primary ratio depended strongly on FOV and weakly on kVp; however DAP increased with decreasing kVp. Threshold thicknesses for grid use varied from 5 cm for a 14 × 17-cm FOV using iDR to 12 cm for an 8 × 10-cm FOV using computed radiography. CONCLUSIONS: Removing the anti-scatter grid for small patients reduces patient dose without a substantial increase in scatter-to-primary ratio when the FOV is restricted appropriately. Radiologic technologists should base anti-scatter grid use on patient thickness and FOV rather than age.
Authors: E Stephen Amis; Priscilla F Butler; Kimberly E Applegate; Steven B Birnbaum; Libby F Brateman; James M Hevezi; Fred A Mettler; Richard L Morin; Michael J Pentecost; Geoffrey G Smith; Keith J Strauss; Robert K Zeman Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Marilyn J Goske; Ellen Charkot; Tracy Herrmann; Susan D John; Thalia T Mills; Gregory Morrison; Susan N Smith Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2011-04-14
Authors: Patricia L Kleinman; Keith J Strauss; David Zurakowski; Kevin S Buckley; George A Taylor Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C S Moore; T J Wood; G Avery; S Balcam; L Needler; A Smith; J R Saunderson; A W Beavis Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 3.039