Seong Ho Kim1, Young Hun Choi2, Hyun-Hae Cho1, So Mi Lee1, Su-Mi Shin3, Jung-Eun Cheon1,4, Woo Sun Kim1,4, In-One Kim1,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea. iater@snu.ac.kr. 3. Department of Radiology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-799, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and radiation dose between high-pitch mode (HPM) and low-pitch mode (LPM) CT in young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven children (mean age 35.6 months; range, 0-126 months) underwent 49 CT examinations in HPM or LPM and were divided into high or low respiratory rate (RR) groups. A qualitative image quality was compared between the two modes. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) were evaluated from the dose reports, and effective doses were assessed using a paediatric phantom. RESULTS: Image quality was generally better for HPM than LPM (diagnostic acceptance score, 4.00 vs. 3.46, P = 0.004); the difference was more prominent in the high RR group (4.00 vs. 3.22, P = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the low RR group. The mean DLP value was higher in HPM than LPM (29.48 mGy · cm vs. 23.46 mGy · cm, P = 0.022), while CTDIvol was not significantly different. The total effective radiation dose was 26 % higher in HPM than LPM (1.82 mSv vs. 1.44 mSv). CONCLUSIONS: LPM can be considered for paediatric lung evaluation in young children with low RRs to reduce radiation dose while maintaining favourable image quality. KEY POINTS: • Radiation exposure is higher on high-pitch "Flash spiral mode" than on low-pitch "X-CARE mode". • "Flash spiral mode" generally showed better image quality than "X-CARE mode". • Difference in image quality was more prominent in the high RR group. • There was no difference in image quality in the low RR group. • "X-CARE mode" should be considered in a limited population with low RRs.
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and radiation dose between high-pitch mode (HPM) and low-pitch mode (LPM) CT in young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven children (mean age 35.6 months; range, 0-126 months) underwent 49 CT examinations in HPM or LPM and were divided into high or low respiratory rate (RR) groups. A qualitative image quality was compared between the two modes. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) were evaluated from the dose reports, and effective doses were assessed using a paediatric phantom. RESULTS: Image quality was generally better for HPM than LPM (diagnostic acceptance score, 4.00 vs. 3.46, P = 0.004); the difference was more prominent in the high RR group (4.00 vs. 3.22, P = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the low RR group. The mean DLP value was higher in HPM than LPM (29.48 mGy · cm vs. 23.46 mGy · cm, P = 0.022), while CTDIvol was not significantly different. The total effective radiation dose was 26 % higher in HPM than LPM (1.82 mSv vs. 1.44 mSv). CONCLUSIONS:LPM can be considered for paediatric lung evaluation in young children with low RRs to reduce radiation dose while maintaining favourable image quality. KEY POINTS: • Radiation exposure is higher on high-pitch "Flash spiral mode" than on low-pitch "X-CARE mode". • "Flash spiral mode" generally showed better image quality than "X-CARE mode". • Difference in image quality was more prominent in the high RR group. • There was no difference in image quality in the low RR group. • "X-CARE mode" should be considered in a limited population with low RRs.
Authors: Sonja Gordic; Lotus Desbiolles; Martin Sedlmair; Robert Manka; André Plass; Bernhard Schmidt; Daniela B Husarik; Francesco Maisano; Simon Wildermuth; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Leschka Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jared D Christensen; Danielle M Seaman; Matthew P Lungren; Lynne M Hurwitz; Daniel T Boll Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Erin Angel; Nazanin Yaghmai; Cecilia Matilda Jude; John J DeMarco; Christopher H Cagnon; Jonathan G Goldin; Cynthia H McCollough; Andrew N Primak; Dianna D Cody; Donna M Stevens; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Susannah Fleming; Matthew Thompson; Richard Stevens; Carl Heneghan; Annette Plüddemann; Ian Maconochie; Lionel Tarassenko; David Mant Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-03-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christian A Barrera; Hansel J Otero; Ammie M White; David Saul; David M Biko Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.357