Baptiste Morel1,2, Sonia Moueddeb3, Eleonore Blondiaux3,4, Stephen Richard3, Manon Bachy5,6, Raphael Vialle5,6, Hubert Ducou Le Pointe3,4. 1. Radiology Department, Clocheville Hospital, CHRU Tours, Tours, France. baptiste.morel@univ-tours.fr. 2. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Clocheville Hospital, 49 Boulevard Beranger, 37000, Tours, France. baptiste.morel@univ-tours.fr. 3. Radiology Department, Armand Trousseau Hospital, AHHP Paris, Paris, France. 4. Department of Pediatric Imaging, Armand Trousseau Hospital, Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris University, Paris, France. 5. Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, France. 6. The MAMUTH Hospital, University Department for Innovative Therapies in Musculoskeletal Diseases, Armand Trousseau Hospital, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the radiation dose, image quality and 3D spine parameter measurements of EOS low-dose and micro-dose protocols for in-brace adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. METHODS: We prospectively included 25 consecutive patients (20 females, 5 males) followed for AIS and undergoing brace treatment. The mean age was 12 years (SD 2 years, range 8-15 years). For each patient, in-brace biplanar EOS radiographs were acquired in a standing position using both the conventional low-dose and micro-dose protocols. Dose area product (DAP) was systematically recorded. Diagnostic image quality was qualitatively assessed by two radiologists for visibility of anatomical structures. The reliability of 3D spine modeling between two operators was quantitatively evaluated for the most clinically relevant 3D radiological parameters using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The mean DAP for the posteroanterior and lateral acquisitions was 300 ± 134 and 433 ± 181 mGy cm2 for the low-dose radiographs, and 41 ± 19 and 81 ± 39 mGy cm2 for micro-dose radiographs. Image quality was lower with the micro-dose protocol. The agreement was "good" to "very good" for all measured clinical parameters when comparing the low-dose and micro-dose protocols (ICC > 0.73). CONCLUSION: The micro-dose protocol substantially reduced the delivered dose (by a factor of 5-7 compared to the low-dose protocol) in braced children with AIS. Although image quality was reduced, the micro-dose protocol proved to be adapted to radiological follow-up, with adequate image quality and reliable clinical measurements. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the radiation dose, image quality and 3D spine parameter measurements of EOS low-dose and micro-dose protocols for in-brace adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. METHODS: We prospectively included 25 consecutive patients (20 females, 5 males) followed for AIS and undergoing brace treatment. The mean age was 12 years (SD 2 years, range 8-15 years). For each patient, in-brace biplanar EOS radiographs were acquired in a standing position using both the conventional low-dose and micro-dose protocols. Dose area product (DAP) was systematically recorded. Diagnostic image quality was qualitatively assessed by two radiologists for visibility of anatomical structures. The reliability of 3D spine modeling between two operators was quantitatively evaluated for the most clinically relevant 3D radiological parameters using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The mean DAP for the posteroanterior and lateral acquisitions was 300 ± 134 and 433 ± 181 mGy cm2 for the low-dose radiographs, and 41 ± 19 and 81 ± 39 mGy cm2 for micro-dose radiographs. Image quality was lower with the micro-dose protocol. The agreement was "good" to "very good" for all measured clinical parameters when comparing the low-dose and micro-dose protocols (ICC > 0.73). CONCLUSION: The micro-dose protocol substantially reduced the delivered dose (by a factor of 5-7 compared to the low-dose protocol) in braced children with AIS. Although image quality was reduced, the micro-dose protocol proved to be adapted to radiological follow-up, with adequate image quality and reliable clinical measurements. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D measurements; Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Biplanar radiographs; EOS imaging system; Pediatric radiology
Authors: Joseph H Carreau; Tracey Bastrom; Maty Petcharaporn; Caitlin Schulte; Michelle Marks; Tamás Illés; Szabolcs Somoskeöy; Peter O Newton Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2014-03-05
Authors: Cécile M Ronckers; Charles E Land; Jeremy S Miller; Marilyn Stovall; John E Lonstein; Michele M Doody Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Jae-Young Hong; Seung-Woo Suh; T R Easwar; Hitesh N Modi; Jae-Hyuk Yang; Jung-Ho Park Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Johannes Rehm; Thomas Germann; Michael Akbar; Wojciech Pepke; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Marc-André Weber; Daniel Spira Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
Authors: Joan Ferràs-Tarragó; J M Morales Valencia; P Rubio Belmar; S Pérez Vergara; P Jordà Gómez; J L Bas Hermida; P Bas Hermida; T Bas Hermida Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 3.134