Literature DB >> 25055274

Variability of MDCT dose due to technologist performance: impact of posteroanterior versus anteroposterior localizer image and table height with use of automated tube current modulation.

Peter A Harri1, Courtney C Moreno, Rendon C Nelson, Negar Fani, William C Small, Phuong-Anh T Duong, Anh Duong, Xiangyang Tang, Kimberly E Applegate.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine MDCT dose variability due to technologist variability in performing CT studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive adult patients who underwent two portal venous phase CT examinations of the abdomen and pelvis on the same 64-MDCT scanner between January and December 2011 were retrospectively identified. Tube voltage (kVp), tube current (mA), use of automated tube current modulation (ATCM), dose-length product (DLP), volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), table height, whether the localizer image was obtained using the posteroanterior or the anteroposterior technique, arm position, and number of overscanned slices were recorded.
RESULTS: For a given patient, the total examination DLP difference comparing the two MDCT studies ranged from 0.1% to 238.0%. For the same patient, total examination DLP was always higher when the localizer image was obtained with the posteroanterior compared with the anteroposterior technique. When table position was closer to the x-ray source, patients appeared magnified in the posteroanterior localizer image (8-29%; average, 14%) and higher tube currents were selected with ATCM. Localizer technique, table height, arm position, number of overscanned slices, and technologist were all significant predictors of dose.
CONCLUSION: Patient off-centering closer to the x-ray source resulted in patient magnification in the posteroanterior localizer image, leading to higher tube currents with ATCM and increased DLP. Differences in technologist, arm position, and overscanning also resulted in dose variability.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT; automated tube current modulation; radiation dose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25055274     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.11608

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  9 in total

1.  Evaluating the impact of scan settings on automatic tube current modulation in CT using a novel phantom.

Authors:  Deborah Merzan; Patrik Nowik; Gavin Poludniowski; Robert Bujila
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Use of radiation dose index monitoring software in a multicenter environment for CT dose optimization.

Authors:  Lucia Riccardi; Francesca De Monte; Fabiola Cretti; Silvia Pini; Sergio Zucca; Maria Grazia Quattrocchi; Daniela Origgi; Antonella Del Vecchio; Carlo Giordano; Piergiorgio Marini; Francesco Lisciandro; Edoardo Trevisiol; Daniele Zefiro; Claudia Cutaia; Loredana D'Ercole; Michele Gabusi; Alessandro Scaggion; Marta Paiusco
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Patient centring and scan length: how inaccurate practice impacts on radiation dose in CT colonography (CTC).

Authors:  Sergio Salerno; Giuseppe Lo Re; Davide Bellini; Marco Rengo; Maurizio Marrale; Maria Chiara Terranova; Laura Scopelliti; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Patient Vertical Centering and Correlation with Radiation Output in Adult Abdominopelvic CT.

Authors:  Phillip M Cheng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Establishing how patient size and degree of miscentring affect CTDIvol, using patient data from a dose tracking system.

Authors:  Sean Cournane; Eimear Brunell; Michael Rowan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  How Much Is the Dose Varying between Follow-Up CT-Examinations Performed on the Same Scanner with the Same Imaging Protocol?

Authors:  Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Franz Ferdinand Stecker; Nika Guberina; Adrian Ringelstein; Thomas Schlosser; Jens Matthias Theysohn; Michael Forsting; Kai Nassenstein
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A CONSORT-compliant prospective randomized controlled trial: radiation dose reducing in computed tomography using an additional lateral scout view combined with automatic tube current modulation: Phantom and patient study.

Authors:  Wanlin Peng; Zhenlin Li; Chunchao Xia; Yingkun Guo; Jinge Zhang; Kai Zhang; Lei Li; Fei Zhao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  The effect of vertical centering and scout direction on automatic tube voltage selection in chest CT: a preliminary phantom study on two different CT equipments.

Authors:  Touko Kaasalainen; Teemu Mäkelä; Mika Kortesniemi
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2018-12-17

9.  Accuracy of automated patient positioning in CT using a 3D camera for body contour detection.

Authors:  Ronald Booij; Ricardo P J Budde; Marcel L Dijkshoorn; Marcel van Straten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.