Bari Dane1, Thomas O'Donnell2, Shu Liu3, Emilio Vega4, Sharon Mohammed5, Vivek Singh6, Ankur Kapoor7, Alec Megibow8. 1. NYU Langone Health, Department of Radiology, New York, NY, 10016, United States. Electronic address: bari.dane@nyulangone.org. 2. Siemens Healthineers, 40 Liberty Blvd, Malvern, PA, 19355, United States. Electronic address: Tom.ODonnell@siemens-healthineers.com. 3. NYU Langone Health, Department of Radiology, New York, NY, 10016, United States. Electronic address: Shu.Liu@nyulangone.org. 4. NYU Langone Health, Department of Radiology, New York, NY, 10016, United States. Electronic address: Emilio.Vega@nyulangone.org. 5. NYU Langone Health, Department of Radiology, New York, NY, 10016, United States. Electronic address: Sharon.Mohammed@nyulangone.org. 6. Siemens Healthineers, 40 Liberty Blvd, Malvern, PA, 19355, United States. Electronic address: Vivek-Singh@siemens-healthineers.com. 7. Siemens Healthineers, 40 Liberty Blvd, Malvern, PA, 19355, United States. Electronic address: Ankur.kapoor@siemens-healthineers.com. 8. NYU Langone Health, Department of Radiology, New York, NY, 10016, United States. Electronic address: Alec.Megibow@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare CT isocenter accuracy, patient dose, and scan time in adults imaged with and without use of a 3D camera. METHOD: 571 CT examinations utilizing a 3D camera for initial patient positioning (optional radiographer isocenter adjustment) and 504 examinations scanned without the camera between 10/1/2018 and 3/19/2019 were retrospectively identified. All exams were chest or abdominopelvic CTs. The isocenters of these exams were compared with the true isocenters defined as the manually delineated centroid of the body in the CT volume. The size specific dose estimate (SSDE) (mGy) of radiation dose obtained from departmental software for the 4 most common protocols on one CT scanner was compared before and after implementation of the 3D camera. The times required for the entire scan and just the topogram "scout" were compared with and without the 3D camera for noncontrast chest and abdominopelvic CT enterography protocols. 2-tailed t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used (P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance). RESULTS: The deviation from true isocenter was 6.8 ± 6.1 mm (P = 0.043) and 16.3 ± 14.0 mm (P < 0.01) with and without the 3D camera, respectively (P < 0.01). CT radiographers accepted isocenter location without alteration in 93 % of examinations. Average SSDE savings with the 3D camera ranged 1.0-2.4 mGy (21-31 %) for the 4 most commonly performed protocols (p < 0.01). Median scout time savings was 32 s (Camera vs. No-Camera cohorts) (P < 0.01). Average noncontrast chest CT and CT enterography scan time savings were 19 s and 17 s with the 3D camera, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D camera improved accuracy of patient positioning while reducing radiation dose and examination time. Implementation of a 3D camera helps standardize workflow in a busy clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To compare CT isocenter accuracy, patient dose, and scan time in adults imaged with and without use of a 3D camera. METHOD: 571 CT examinations utilizing a 3D camera for initial patient positioning (optional radiographer isocenter adjustment) and 504 examinations scanned without the camera between 10/1/2018 and 3/19/2019 were retrospectively identified. All exams were chest or abdominopelvic CTs. The isocenters of these exams were compared with the true isocenters defined as the manually delineated centroid of the body in the CT volume. The size specific dose estimate (SSDE) (mGy) of radiation dose obtained from departmental software for the 4 most common protocols on one CT scanner was compared before and after implementation of the 3D camera. The times required for the entire scan and just the topogram "scout" were compared with and without the 3D camera for noncontrast chest and abdominopelvic CT enterography protocols. 2-tailed t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used (P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance). RESULTS: The deviation from true isocenter was 6.8 ± 6.1 mm (P = 0.043) and 16.3 ± 14.0 mm (P < 0.01) with and without the 3D camera, respectively (P < 0.01). CT radiographers accepted isocenter location without alteration in 93 % of examinations. Average SSDE savings with the 3D camera ranged 1.0-2.4 mGy (21-31 %) for the 4 most commonly performed protocols (p < 0.01). Median scout time savings was 32 s (Camera vs. No-Camera cohorts) (P < 0.01). Average noncontrast chest CT and CT enterography scan time savings were 19 s and 17 s with the 3D camera, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D camera improved accuracy of patient positioning while reducing radiation dose and examination time. Implementation of a 3D camera helps standardize workflow in a busy clinical practice.
Authors: Yazan Al-Hayek; Xiaoming Zheng; Rob Davidson; Christopher Hayre; Dana Al-Mousa; Campbell Finlay; Kelly Spuur Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2021-08-17