A A Esposito1, M Zilocchi2, P Fasani3, C Giannitto4, S Maccagnoni5, M Maniglio6, M Campoleoni7, R Brambilla8, E Casiraghi9, P R Biondetti10. 1. Department of Radiology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20121 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: rxandreaesposito@yahoo.it. 2. Department of Radiology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20121 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: massimo.zilocchi@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20121 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: fasapier65@gmail.com. 4. School of Radiology, University of Milan, Via A. di Rudinì 8, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: caterina.giannitto@gmail.com. 5. School of Radiology, University of Milan, Via A. di Rudinì 8, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: maccagnnisara@libero.it. 6. School of Radiology, University of Milan, Via A. di Rudinì 8, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: marinamaniglio@gmail.com. 7. Medical Phisic Unit, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza, 35, 20121 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: campoleoni@policlinico.mi.it. 8. Medical Phisic Unit, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza, 35, 20121 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: roberto.brambilla@policlinico.mi.it. 9. Computer Science Department, University of Milan, Via Comelico 39, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: casiraghi@di.unimi.it. 10. Department of Radiology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20121 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: pibionde@tin.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility and radiation dose of thoraco-abdominopelvic precontrast CT in polytrauma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined retrospectively 125 patients who underwent a thoraco-abdominopelvic CT for trauma. Two radiologists, independently, evaluated precontrast CT acquisition and two other radiologists examined the contrast-enhanced scans. A further two radiologists assessed both the acquisitions. Mean value of sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated by each group of radiologists. For 104 patients, CTDIvol, DLP data and individual mean size were collected to calculate effective dose. RESULTS: Mean values of SE, SP, PPV and NPV of findings of radiologists who assessed contrast-enhanced acquisitions were respectively: SE=85%, SP=98%, PPV=86%, NPV=88% versus: SE=43%, SP=95%, PPV=69%, NPV=88% of radiologists who examined non-contrast-enhanced scans. Mean values of radiologists who analyzed both acquisitions were: SE=80%, SP=97%, PPV=80%, NPV=88%. Neither the precontrast scans nor the precontrast and postcontrast scans together provided additional useful information compared to the single contrast-enhanced acquisition. Patients received a mean dose of 12 mSv for the precontrast CT. CONCLUSIONS: Precontrast CT acquisition did not provide significant information in trauma patients, exposing them to an unjustified radiation dose.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility and radiation dose of thoraco-abdominopelvic precontrast CT in polytraumapatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined retrospectively 125 patients who underwent a thoraco-abdominopelvic CT for trauma. Two radiologists, independently, evaluated precontrast CT acquisition and two other radiologists examined the contrast-enhanced scans. A further two radiologists assessed both the acquisitions. Mean value of sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated by each group of radiologists. For 104 patients, CTDIvol, DLP data and individual mean size were collected to calculate effective dose. RESULTS: Mean values of SE, SP, PPV and NPV of findings of radiologists who assessed contrast-enhanced acquisitions were respectively: SE=85%, SP=98%, PPV=86%, NPV=88% versus: SE=43%, SP=95%, PPV=69%, NPV=88% of radiologists who examined non-contrast-enhanced scans. Mean values of radiologists who analyzed both acquisitions were: SE=80%, SP=97%, PPV=80%, NPV=88%. Neither the precontrast scans nor the precontrast and postcontrast scans together provided additional useful information compared to the single contrast-enhanced acquisition. Patients received a mean dose of 12 mSv for the precontrast CT. CONCLUSIONS: Precontrast CT acquisition did not provide significant information in traumapatients, exposing them to an unjustified radiation dose.
Authors: I Molwitz; M Leiderer; R McDonough; R Fischer; A-K Ozga; C Ozden; E Tahir; D Koehler; G Adam; J Yamamura Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Huda Al Naemi; Antar Aly; Mohamad Hassan Kharita; Shatha Al Hilli; Amal Al Obadli; Ramandeep Singh; Madan M Rehani; Mannudeep K Kalra Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 1.817