Abdominal CT radiation dose optimization at Siriraj Hospital

OBJECTIVE: To compare radiation dose and image quality between standard dose abdominal CT currently performed at our hospital and new low dose abdominal CT using various percentages (0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%) of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASiR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospective...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The ASEAN Journal of Radiology 2020-08, Vol.21 (2), p.28-43
Hauptverfasser: Apisarnthanarak, Piyaporn, Buranont, Chosita, Boonma, Chulaluck, Janpanich, Sureerat, Suwatananonthakij, Tarntip, Klinhom, Atchariya, Muangsomboon, Kobkun, Teerasamit, Wanwarang, Suvannnarerg, Voraparee, Saiviroonporn, Pairash
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:OBJECTIVE: To compare radiation dose and image quality between standard dose abdominal CT currently performed at our hospital and new low dose abdominal CT using various percentages (0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%) of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASiR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively performed low dose abdominal CT (30% reduction of standard tube current) in 119 participants. The low dose CT images were post processed with four parameters (0%, 10%, 20% and 30%) of ASiR. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of standard and low dose CT were compared. Four experienced abdominal radiologists independently assessed the quality of low dose CT with aforementioned ASiR parameters using a 5-point-scale satisfaction score (1 = unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, and 5 = excellent image quality) by using prior standard dose CT as a reference of excellent image quality (5). Each reader selected the preference ASiR parameter for each participant. The image noise of the liver and the aorta in all 5 (1 prior standard dose and 4 current low dose) image sets was measured.     RESULTS: The mean CTDIvol of low dose CT was significantly lower than of standard dose CT (7.17 ± 0.08 vs 12.02 ±1.61 mGy, p
ISSN:0859-144X
2672-9393
DOI:10.46475/aseanjr.v21i2.80