P G Kranz1, J D Wylie2, J K Hoang3, A S Kosinski4. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (P.G.K., J.D.W., J.K.H.) peter.kranz@duke.edu. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (P.G.K., J.D.W., J.K.H.). 3. From the Departments of Radiology (P.G.K., J.D.W., J.K.H.) Radiation Oncology (J.K.H.). 4. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (A.S.K.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The CT table strap may impair shoulder lowering during cervical spine CT. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of the CT table strap on radiation exposure and image quality during CT of the cervical spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients undergoing cervical spine CT were prospectively randomized to having the CT table strap placed around the torso and arms (control group) or around the torso only (intervention group). Radiation exposure, shoulder position, and image quality were evaluated. Potential confounders, including neck diameter and scan length, were also assessed. RESULTS:Fifty-eight patients were enrolled and randomized, and 51 subjects were included in the final study population. There was a 21% decrease in radiation exposure in the intervention group compared with the control group (mean dose-length product, 540 ± 152 versus 686 ± 200 mGy × cm, P = .005). Subjects in the intervention group achieved shoulder lowering of an average of >1 vertebral body lower than the control group (mean shoulder level, 7.7 ± 1.3 versus 6.5 ± 1.3, P = .001). Subjective image quality, determined by the lowest level of spinal cord visibility, was also better in the intervention group (mean cord visibility level, 6.9 ± 1.3 versus 5.9 ± 1.3, P = .006). No differences in neck diameter (P = .28) or scan length (P = .55) were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CT table strap inhibits shoulder lowering during CT of the cervical spine. Placement of the patient's arms outside the CT table strap results in decreased radiation exposure and increased image quality compared with patients whose arms are placed inside the strap.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The CT table strap may impair shoulder lowering during cervical spine CT. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of the CT table strap on radiation exposure and image quality during CT of the cervical spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients undergoing cervical spine CT were prospectively randomized to having the CT table strap placed around the torso and arms (control group) or around the torso only (intervention group). Radiation exposure, shoulder position, and image quality were evaluated. Potential confounders, including neck diameter and scan length, were also assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled and randomized, and 51 subjects were included in the final study population. There was a 21% decrease in radiation exposure in the intervention group compared with the control group (mean dose-length product, 540 ± 152 versus 686 ± 200 mGy × cm, P = .005). Subjects in the intervention group achieved shoulder lowering of an average of >1 vertebral body lower than the control group (mean shoulder level, 7.7 ± 1.3 versus 6.5 ± 1.3, P = .001). Subjective image quality, determined by the lowest level of spinal cord visibility, was also better in the intervention group (mean cord visibility level, 6.9 ± 1.3 versus 5.9 ± 1.3, P = .006). No differences in neck diameter (P = .28) or scan length (P = .55) were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CT table strap inhibits shoulder lowering during CT of the cervical spine. Placement of the patient's arms outside the CT table strap results in decreased radiation exposure and increased image quality compared with patients whose arms are placed inside the strap.
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; Andreia R Gafton; James D Eastwood; Luke F Chen; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marilyn J Goske; Kimberly E Applegate; Jennifer Boylan; Priscilla F Butler; Michael J Callahan; Brian D Coley; Shawn Farley; Donald P Frush; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Diego Jaramillo; Neil D Johnson; Sue C Kaste; Greg Morrison; Keith J Strauss; Nora Tuggle Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Dianna D Cody; John M Boone; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Michael R Bruesewitz; Kristen B Thomas; Joel G Fletcher; James M Kofler; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Amy K Hara; Robert G Paden; Alvin C Silva; Jennifer L Kujak; Holly J Lawder; William Pavlicek Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sebastian T Schindera; Rendon C Nelson; Thomas L Toth; Giao T Nguyen; Greta I Toncheva; David M DeLong; Terry T Yoshizumi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Monique Brink; Frank de Lange; Luuk J Oostveen; Helena M Dekker; Digna R Kool; Jaap Deunk; Michael J R Edwards; Cornelis van Kuijk; Richard L Kamman; Johan G Blickman Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Tozakidou; C Reisinger; D Harder; J Lieb; Z Szucs-Farkas; M Müller-Gerbl; U Studler; S Schindera; A Hirschmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Eun Ju Ha; Sae Rom Chung; Dong Gyu Na; Hye Shin Ahn; Jin Chung; Ji Ye Lee; Jeong Seon Park; Roh-Eul Yoo; Jung Hwan Baek; Sun Mi Baek; Seong Whi Cho; Yoon Jung Choi; Soo Yeon Hahn; So Lyung Jung; Ji-Hoon Kim; Seul Kee Kim; Soo Jin Kim; Chang Yoon Lee; Ho Kyu Lee; Jeong Hyun Lee; Young Hen Lee; Hyun Kyung Lim; Jung Hee Shin; Jung Suk Sim; Jin Young Sung; Jung Hyun Yoon; Miyoung Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 3.500