Sergio Salerno1, Giuseppe Lo Re2, Davide Bellini3, Marco Rengo4, Maurizio Marrale5, Maria Chiara Terranova2, Laura Scopelliti2, Andrea Laghi6. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Palermo, Policlinico Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy. sergio.salerno@unipa.it. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Palermo, Policlinico Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy. 3. Dipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, Oncologiche e Anatomo-Patologiche, "Sapienza" - Università di Roma Diagnostica per Immagini - Ospedale I.C.O.T, Via Franco Faggiana n.1668, 04100, Latina, Italy. 4. Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, School of Medicine and Psychology, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189, Rome, Italy. 5. Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica, Viale delle Scienze Ed. 17, 90128, Palermo, Italy. 6. Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza-University of Rome, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to acknowledge errors in patients positioning in CT colonography (CTC) and their effect in radiation exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CTC studies of a total of 199 patients coming from two different referral hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Two parameters have been considered for the analysis: patient position in relation to gantry isocentre and scan length related to the area of interest. CTDI vol and DLP were extracted for each patient. In order to evaluate the estimated effective total dose and the dose to various organs, we used the CT-EXPO® software version 2.2. This software provides estimates of effective dose and doses to the other various organs. RESULTS: Average value of the patients' position is found to be below the isocentre for 48 ± 25 mm and 29 ± 27 mm in the prone and supine position. It was observed that the increase in CTDI and DLP values for patients in Group 1, due to the inaccurate positioning, was estimated at about 30% and 20% for prone and supine position, respectively, while in Group 2, a decrease in CTDI and DLP values was estimated at about 16% and 18% for prone and supine position, respectively, due to an average position above isocentre. A dose increase ranging from 4 up to 13% was calculated with increasing the over-scanned region below anal orifice. CONCLUSION: Radiographers and radiologists need to be aware of dose variation and noise effects on vertical positioning and over-scanning. More accurate training need to be achieved even so when examination protocol varies from general practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to acknowledge errors in patients positioning in CT colonography (CTC) and their effect in radiation exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CTC studies of a total of 199 patients coming from two different referral hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Two parameters have been considered for the analysis: patient position in relation to gantry isocentre and scan length related to the area of interest. CTDI vol and DLP were extracted for each patient. In order to evaluate the estimated effective total dose and the dose to various organs, we used the CT-EXPO® software version 2.2. This software provides estimates of effective dose and doses to the other various organs. RESULTS: Average value of the patients' position is found to be below the isocentre for 48 ± 25 mm and 29 ± 27 mm in the prone and supine position. It was observed that the increase in CTDI and DLP values for patients in Group 1, due to the inaccurate positioning, was estimated at about 30% and 20% for prone and supine position, respectively, while in Group 2, a decrease in CTDI and DLP values was estimated at about 16% and 18% for prone and supine position, respectively, due to an average position above isocentre. A dose increase ranging from 4 up to 13% was calculated with increasing the over-scanned region below anal orifice. CONCLUSION: Radiographers and radiologists need to be aware of dose variation and noise effects on vertical positioning and over-scanning. More accurate training need to be achieved even so when examination protocol varies from general practice.
Authors: A Graser; P Stieber; D Nagel; C Schäfer; D Horst; C R Becker; K Nikolaou; A Lottes; S Geisbüsch; H Kramer; A C Wagner; H Diepolder; J Schirra; H J Roth; D Seidel; B Göke; M F Reiser; F T Kolligs Journal: Gut Date: 2008-10-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Daniele Regge; Cristiana Laudi; Giovanni Galatola; Patrizia Della Monica; Luigina Bonelli; Giuseppe Angelelli; Roberto Asnaghi; Brunella Barbaro; Carlo Bartolozzi; Didier Bielen; Luca Boni; Claudia Borghi; Paolo Bruzzi; Maria Carla Cassinis; Massimo Galia; Teresa Maria Gallo; Andrea Grasso; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi; Maria Cristina Martina; Emanuele Neri; Carlo Senore; Giovanni Simonetti; Silvia Venturini; Giovanni Gandini Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aaron Sodickson; Pieter F Baeyens; Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Richard D Nawfel; Richard Hanson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Francesca Iacobellis; Donatella Narese; Daniela Berritto; Antonio Brillantino; Marco Di Serafino; Susanna Guerrini; Roberta Grassi; Mariano Scaglione; Maria Antonietta Mazzei; Luigia Romano Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-30