OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of tuning the automatic exposure control (AEC) strength curve (specific to Care Dose 4D®; Siemens Healthcare, Forchheim, Germany) from "average" to "strong" on image quality, radiation dose and operator dependency during lumbar spine CT examinations. METHODS: Two hospitals (H1, H2), both using the same scanners, were considered for two time periods (P1 and P2). During P1, the AEC curve was "average" and radiographers had to select one of two protocols according to the body mass index (BMI): "standard" if BMI <30.0 kg m(-2) (120 kV-330 mAs) or "large" if BMI >30.0 kg m(-2) (140 kV-280 mAs). During P2, the AEC curve was changed to "strong", and all acquisitions were obtained with one protocol (120 kV and 270 mAs). Image quality was scored and patients' diameters calculated for both periods. RESULTS: 497 examinations were analysed. There was no significant difference in mean diameters according to hospitals and periods (p > 0.801) and in quality scores between periods (p > 0.172). There was a significant difference between hospitals regarding how often the "large" protocol was assigned [13 (10%)/132 patients in H1 vs 37 (28%)/133 in H2] (p < 0.001). During P1, volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) was higher in H2 (+13%; p = 0.050). In both hospitals, CTDIvol was reduced between periods (-19.2% in H1 and -29.4% in H2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An operator dependency in protocol selection, unexplained by patient diameters or highlighted by image quality scores, has been observed. Tuning the AEC curve from average to strong enables suppression of the operator dependency in protocol selection and related dose increase, while preserving image quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CT acquisition protocols based on weight are responsible for biases in protocol selection. Using an appropriate AEC strength curve reduces the number of protocols to one. Operator dependency of protocol selection is thereby eliminated.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of tuning the automatic exposure control (AEC) strength curve (specific to Care Dose 4D®; Siemens Healthcare, Forchheim, Germany) from "average" to "strong" on image quality, radiation dose and operator dependency during lumbar spine CT examinations. METHODS: Two hospitals (H1, H2), both using the same scanners, were considered for two time periods (P1 and P2). During P1, the AEC curve was "average" and radiographers had to select one of two protocols according to the body mass index (BMI): "standard" if BMI <30.0 kg m(-2) (120 kV-330 mAs) or "large" if BMI >30.0 kg m(-2) (140 kV-280 mAs). During P2, the AEC curve was changed to "strong", and all acquisitions were obtained with one protocol (120 kV and 270 mAs). Image quality was scored and patients' diameters calculated for both periods. RESULTS: 497 examinations were analysed. There was no significant difference in mean diameters according to hospitals and periods (p > 0.801) and in quality scores between periods (p > 0.172). There was a significant difference between hospitals regarding how often the "large" protocol was assigned [13 (10%)/132 patients in H1 vs 37 (28%)/133 in H2] (p < 0.001). During P1, volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) was higher in H2 (+13%; p = 0.050). In both hospitals, CTDIvol was reduced between periods (-19.2% in H1 and -29.4% in H2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An operator dependency in protocol selection, unexplained by patient diameters or highlighted by image quality scores, has been observed. Tuning the AEC curve from average to strong enables suppression of the operator dependency in protocol selection and related dose increase, while preserving image quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CT acquisition protocols based on weight are responsible for biases in protocol selection. Using an appropriate AEC strength curve reduces the number of protocols to one. Operator dependency of protocol selection is thereby eliminated.
Authors: Jared Martillotti; Naomi Silva; Jyoti Chhabra; Christian Molstrom; Ryan Coughlin; Michael O'Loughlin; Bret Coughlin Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2012-08-17
Authors: Jianhai Li; Unni K Udayasankar; Thomas L Toth; John Seamans; William C Small; Mannudeep K Kalra Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-02 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