OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of automated attenuation-based tube potential selection on image quality and exposure parameters in polytrauma patients undergoing contrast-enhanced thoraco-abdominal CT. METHODS: One hundred patients were examined on a 16-slice device at 120 kV with 190 ref.mAs and automated mA modulation only. Another 100 patients underwent 128-slice CT with automated mA modulation and topogram-based automated tube potential selection (autokV) at 100, 120 or 140 kV. Volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)), dose-length product (DLP), body diameters, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and subjective image quality were compared. RESULTS: In the autokV group, 100 kV was automatically selected in 82 patients, 120 kV in 12 patients and 140 kV in 6 patients. Patient diameters increased with higher kV settings. The median CTDI(vol) (8.3 vs. 12.4 mGy; -33%) and DLP (594 vs. 909 mGy cm; -35%) in the entire autokV group were significantly lower than in the group with fixed 120 kV (p < 0.05 for both). Image quality remained at a constantly high level at any selected kV level. CONCLUSION: Topogram-based automated selection of the tube potential allows for significant dose savings in thoraco-abdominal trauma CT while image quality remains at a constantly high level. KEY POINTS: • Automated kV selection in thoraco-abdominal trauma CT results in significant dose savings • Most patients benefit from a 100-kV protocol with relevant DLP reduction • Constantly good image quality is ensured • Image quality benefits from higher kV when arms are positioned downward.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of automated attenuation-based tube potential selection on image quality and exposure parameters in polytraumapatients undergoing contrast-enhanced thoraco-abdominal CT. METHODS: One hundred patients were examined on a 16-slice device at 120 kV with 190 ref.mAs and automated mA modulation only. Another 100 patients underwent 128-slice CT with automated mA modulation and topogram-based automated tube potential selection (autokV) at 100, 120 or 140 kV. Volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)), dose-length product (DLP), body diameters, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and subjective image quality were compared. RESULTS: In the autokV group, 100 kV was automatically selected in 82 patients, 120 kV in 12 patients and 140 kV in 6 patients. Patient diameters increased with higher kV settings. The median CTDI(vol) (8.3 vs. 12.4 mGy; -33%) and DLP (594 vs. 909 mGy cm; -35%) in the entire autokV group were significantly lower than in the group with fixed 120 kV (p < 0.05 for both). Image quality remained at a constantly high level at any selected kV level. CONCLUSION: Topogram-based automated selection of the tube potential allows for significant dose savings in thoraco-abdominal trauma CT while image quality remains at a constantly high level. KEY POINTS: • Automated kV selection in thoraco-abdominal trauma CT results in significant dose savings • Most patients benefit from a 100-kV protocol with relevant DLP reduction • Constantly good image quality is ensured • Image quality benefits from higher kV when arms are positioned downward.
Authors: Björn Loewenhardt; Michael Buhl; André Gries; Clemens-Alexander Greim; Achim Hellinger; Martin Hessmann; Thomas Rathjen; Michael Reinert; Christoph Manke; Michael Bernhard Journal: Injury Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Huiman Barnhart; Sebastian T Schindera; Lisa M Ho; Tracy A Jaffe; Terry T Yoshizumi; Richard Youngblood; Ehsan Samei Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T E Wurmb; C Quaisser; H Balling; M Kredel; R Muellenbach; W Kenn; N Roewer; J Brederlau Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Jörg Bayer; Gregor Pache; Peter C Strohm; Jörn Zwingmann; Philipp Blanke; Tobias Baumann; Norbert P Südkamp; Thorsten Hammer Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-04
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stefan Huber-Wagner; Rolf Lefering; Lars-Mikael Qvick; Markus Körner; Michael V Kay; Klaus-Jürgen Pfeifer; Maximilian Reiser; Wolf Mutschler; Karl-Georg Kanz Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Suntharalingam; A Wetter; N Guberina; J Theysohn; A Ringelstein; T Schlosser; M Forsting; K Nassenstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Clara Park; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Doris Leithner; Amelie Zierden; Mortiz H Albrecht; Julian L Wichmann; Boris Bodelle; Mohamed Elsabaie; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Moritz Kaup; Thomas J Vogl; Martin Beeres Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 3.909