| Literature DB >> 35469151 |
Thanyawee Pengpan1, Natch Rattanarungruangchai2, Juthathip Dechjaithat1, Phawinee Panthim1, Puntarika Siricharuwong1, Ausanai Prapan1.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to identify proper exposure techniques to maintain optimal diagnostic image quality with minimum radiation dose for anteroposterior chest X-ray projection in pediatric patients.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35469151 PMCID: PMC9034961 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3482458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Res Pract ISSN: 2090-195X
The comparison of density and CT numbers of human tissue and tissue substitute materials. Polyester resin, polyester resin with 40% CaCO3, and polyurethane foam were used as soft tissue, bone, and lung, tissue-equivalent materials, respectively.
| Density (g/cm3) | CT number (HU) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soft tissue | Bone | Lung | Soft tissue | Bone | Lung | |
| Human tissue | 1.06 | 1.6 to 2 | 0.26 | 40 to 80 | 400 to 1000 | −400 to −600 |
| Tissue substitutes used | 1.12 | n/a | 0.30 | 112.8 ± 4.1 | 587.2 ± 51.1 | −955.5 ± 1.4 |
| % Difference | 5.3 | — | 15.8 | 41 | −41.3 | 59.3 |
n/a is not assessed.
Figure 1(a) The phantom settings for absorbed dose measurement; (b) the placing location of the nanodots OSLDs in the lung; (c) the location of the ROI measurements on the phantom image using the ImageJ software. The yellow circle and red circle represent the ROI object and ROI background, respectively.
Criteria evaluation tool in the visual grading analysis for evaluation image.
| # | Questions (criteria evaluation) | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| 1 | Reproduction of the whole rib cage above the diaphragm. | ||||||
| 2 | Visualization of the spine through the heart shadow. | ||||||
| 3 | Comparing the sharpness of the right and left diaphragm between the image and the reference image. | ||||||
| 4 | Comparing the contrast with the background for all the nodules between the image and the reference image. | ||||||
| 5 | Less noise means better image quality; knowing this, what do you think of the image quality of this image? | ||||||
| 6 | Comparing the differentiation between soft tissue, air, and bone on this image and the reference image. | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| # | Image evaluation (Score) | Clearly inferior to the reference (−2) | Slightly inferior to the reference (−1) | Equal to the reference (0) | Slightly superior to the reference (1) | Clearly superior to the reference (2) | |
Figure 2The constructed pediatric chest phantom: (a) the completed phantom; (b) the lung insertion part; (c) the left and right lungs; (d) the bone components (ribs and vertebra) in phantom.
Figure 3The resulting absorbed dose (mean ± SD) and the average visual grading analysis scoring (VGA) as a function of each exposure technique (a) Example of images in different image qualities obtained at different kV-mAs settings.
Figure 4An increase in SNR (a) and CNR (b) as the exposure technique (kVp and mAs) increase. The asterisk indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Result of the figure of merit.