Sun Kyung Jeon1,2, Young Hun Choi3,4, Jung-Eun Cheon1,2,5, Woo Sun Kim1,2,5, Yeon Jin Cho1,2, Ji Young Ha1, Seung Hyun Lee1, Hyejin Hyun6, In-One Kim1,2,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Children's Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Children's Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. iater@snu.ac.kr. 4. Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. iater@snu.ac.kr. 5. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. Toshiba Medical Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 320-row multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanner has multiple scan modes, including volumetric modes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality and radiation dose of 320-row CT in three acquisition modes - helical, one-shot volume, and wide-volume scan - at pediatric brain imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven children underwent unenhanced brain CT using one of three scan modes (helical scan, n=21; one-shot volume scan, n=17; wide-volume scan, n=19). For qualitative analysis, two reviewers evaluated overall image quality and image noise using a 5-point grading system. For quantitative analysis, signal-to-noise ratio, image noise and posterior fossa artifact index were calculated. To measure the radiation dose, adjusted CT dose index per unit volume (CTDIadj) and dose length product (DLP) were compared. RESULTS: Qualitatively, the wide-volume scan showed significantly less image noise than the helical scan (P=0.009), and less streak artifact than the one-shot volume scan (P=0.001). The helical mode showed significantly lower signal-to-noise ratio, with a higher image noise level compared with the one-shot volume and wide-volume modes (all P<0.05). The CTDIadj and DLP were significantly lower in the one-shot volume and wide-volume modes compared with those in the helical scan mode (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: For pediatric unenhanced brain CT, both the wide-volume and one-shot volume scans reduced radiation dose compared to the helical scan mode, while the wide-volume scan mode showed fewer streak artifacts in the skull vertex and posterior fossa than the one-shot volume scan.
BACKGROUND: The 320-row multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanner has multiple scan modes, including volumetric modes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality and radiation dose of 320-row CT in three acquisition modes - helical, one-shot volume, and wide-volume scan - at pediatric brain imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven children underwent unenhanced brain CT using one of three scan modes (helical scan, n=21; one-shot volume scan, n=17; wide-volume scan, n=19). For qualitative analysis, two reviewers evaluated overall image quality and image noise using a 5-point grading system. For quantitative analysis, signal-to-noise ratio, image noise and posterior fossa artifact index were calculated. To measure the radiation dose, adjusted CT dose index per unit volume (CTDIadj) and dose length product (DLP) were compared. RESULTS: Qualitatively, the wide-volume scan showed significantly less image noise than the helical scan (P=0.009), and less streak artifact than the one-shot volume scan (P=0.001). The helical mode showed significantly lower signal-to-noise ratio, with a higher image noise level compared with the one-shot volume and wide-volume modes (all P<0.05). The CTDIadj and DLP were significantly lower in the one-shot volume and wide-volume modes compared with those in the helical scan mode (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: For pediatric unenhanced brain CT, both the wide-volume and one-shot volume scans reduced radiation dose compared to the helical scan mode, while the wide-volume scan mode showed fewer streak artifacts in the skull vertex and posterior fossa than the one-shot volume scan.
Authors: Young Jin Ryu; Woo Sun Kim; Young Hun Choi; Jung-Eun Cheon; So Mi Lee; Hyun-Hae Cho; In-One Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Daniel J Podberesky; Erin Angel; Terry T Yoshizumi; Greta Toncheva; Shelia R Salisbury; Alan S Brody; Christopher Alsip; Alessandra Barelli; John C Egelhoff; Colin Anderson-Evans; Giao B Nguyen; David Dow; Donald P Frush Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: E Siebert; G Bohner; M Dewey; F Masuhr; K T Hoffmann; J Mews; F Engelken; H C Bauknecht; S Diekmann; R Klingebiel Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2009-02-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: U K Udayasankar; K Braithwaite; M Arvaniti; D Tudorascu; W C Small; S Little; S Palasis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K Murayama; S Suzuki; H Nagata; J Oda; I Nakahara; K Katada; K Fujii; H Toyama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.825