Standard vs. reduced-radiation-dose CT in the tracing of the ureter

Purpose To assess the effectiveness of reduced-radiation-dose computed tomography (CT) protocols in the tracing of the ureter in patients with suspected renal colic. Methods The study was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. From July 2...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Abdominal imaging 2017-03, Vol.42 (3), p.900-907
Hauptverfasser: Sung, Chang Kyu, Moon, Min Hoan, Son, Hwancheol, Oh, Sohee, Lee, Myoung Seok, Woo, Hyunsik
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 907
container_issue 3
container_start_page 900
container_title Abdominal imaging
container_volume 42
creator Sung, Chang Kyu
Moon, Min Hoan
Son, Hwancheol
Oh, Sohee
Lee, Myoung Seok
Woo, Hyunsik
description Purpose To assess the effectiveness of reduced-radiation-dose computed tomography (CT) protocols in the tracing of the ureter in patients with suspected renal colic. Methods The study was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. From July 2012 to April 2014, 310 consecutive patients with suspected urolithiasis were recruited to undergo unenhanced CT at 280 ( n  = 62), 200 ( n  = 62), 140 ( n  = 62), 100 ( n  = 62), and 70 ( n  = 62) reference mA seconds (mAs) while keeping other imaging parameters constant. Images were independently and randomly reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the study to determine the tracing rates of the ureter and the acceptable rates of image quality according to different tube charge settings. Results A significant linear association was noted between tube charge settings, the rates for tracing of the ureter, and the acceptability of image quality (linear-by-linear association; p  = 0.000 in all rates for both readers). The 140 reference mAs is the point at which the tracing rates deteriorate rapidly, with the tracing rate of 41.5% (95% CI 32.6%–51.0%) in reader 1 and 51.9% (95% CI 42.5%–61.2%) in reader 2, and with the acceptable rate of 82.3% (95% CI 70.8%–90.0%) in reader 1 and 96.8% (95% CI 88.3%–99.8%) in reader 2. Conclusion Decreasing the tube charge settings from 280 to 70 reference mAs resulted in a significant reduction in the tracing rate of the ureter, with 140 reference mAs being the breaking point.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00261-016-0929-y
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835406657</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1835406657</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-b60e3f501d73a7256691ceadd957dc471244ff7f3f41701f623b1fd96a0da2d33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMottT-AC-y4MVL6uR79yjFLyh4sIK3kG6SuqXdrcmu0H9v6lYRwdPMkGfeCQ9C5wQmBEBdRwAqCQYiMRS0wLsjNKRMpglEfvzT89cBGse4AkikIISKUzSgSjFgtBii6XNramuCzT7iJAvOdqWzOBhbmbZqamyb6LLpPKvqrH1zWRtMWdXLrPFfYxdc68IZOvFmHd34UEfo5e52Pn3As6f7x-nNDJec5S1eSHDMCyBWMaOokLIgpTPWFkLZkitCOfdeeeY5UUC8pGxBvC2kAWuoZWyErvrcbWjeOxdbvali6dZrU7umi5rkTHCQUqiEXv5BV00X6vS7RKkceJ4XkCjSU2VoYgzO622oNibsNAG9l6x7yTqp03vJepd2Lg7J3WLj7M_Gt9IE0B6I6aleuvDr9L-pn916hU8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1878048890</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Standard vs. reduced-radiation-dose CT in the tracing of the ureter</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Sung, Chang Kyu ; Moon, Min Hoan ; Son, Hwancheol ; Oh, Sohee ; Lee, Myoung Seok ; Woo, Hyunsik</creator><creatorcontrib>Sung, Chang Kyu ; Moon, Min Hoan ; Son, Hwancheol ; Oh, Sohee ; Lee, Myoung Seok ; Woo, Hyunsik</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To assess the effectiveness of reduced-radiation-dose computed tomography (CT) protocols in the tracing of the ureter in patients with suspected renal colic. Methods The study was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. From July 2012 to April 2014, 310 consecutive patients with suspected urolithiasis were recruited to undergo unenhanced CT at 280 ( n  = 62), 200 ( n  = 62), 140 ( n  = 62), 100 ( n  = 62), and 70 ( n  = 62) reference mA seconds (mAs) while keeping other imaging parameters constant. Images were independently and randomly reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the study to determine the tracing rates of the ureter and the acceptable rates of image quality according to different tube charge settings. Results A significant linear association was noted between tube charge settings, the rates for tracing of the ureter, and the acceptability of image quality (linear-by-linear association; p  = 0.000 in all rates for both readers). The 140 reference mAs is the point at which the tracing rates deteriorate rapidly, with the tracing rate of 41.5% (95% CI 32.6%–51.0%) in reader 1 and 51.9% (95% CI 42.5%–61.2%) in reader 2, and with the acceptable rate of 82.3% (95% CI 70.8%–90.0%) in reader 1 and 96.8% (95% CI 88.3%–99.8%) in reader 2. Conclusion Decreasing the tube charge settings from 280 to 70 reference mAs resulted in a significant reduction in the tracing rate of the ureter, with 140 reference mAs being the breaking point.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2366-004X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2366-0058</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0929-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27730329</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Female ; Gastroenterology ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Imaging ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiology ; Renal Colic - diagnostic imaging ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Ureter - diagnostic imaging ; Urolithiasis - diagnostic imaging</subject><ispartof>Abdominal imaging, 2017-03, Vol.42 (3), p.900-907</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016</rights><rights>Abdominal Radiology is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-b60e3f501d73a7256691ceadd957dc471244ff7f3f41701f623b1fd96a0da2d33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-b60e3f501d73a7256691ceadd957dc471244ff7f3f41701f623b1fd96a0da2d33</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2448-2895</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00261-016-0929-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-016-0929-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27730329$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sung, Chang Kyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moon, Min Hoan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Son, Hwancheol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oh, Sohee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Myoung Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woo, Hyunsik</creatorcontrib><title>Standard vs. reduced-radiation-dose CT in the tracing of the ureter</title><title>Abdominal imaging</title><addtitle>Abdom Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><description>Purpose To assess the effectiveness of reduced-radiation-dose computed tomography (CT) protocols in the tracing of the ureter in patients with suspected renal colic. Methods The study was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. From July 2012 to April 2014, 310 consecutive patients with suspected urolithiasis were recruited to undergo unenhanced CT at 280 ( n  = 62), 200 ( n  = 62), 140 ( n  = 62), 100 ( n  = 62), and 70 ( n  = 62) reference mA seconds (mAs) while keeping other imaging parameters constant. Images were independently and randomly reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the study to determine the tracing rates of the ureter and the acceptable rates of image quality according to different tube charge settings. Results A significant linear association was noted between tube charge settings, the rates for tracing of the ureter, and the acceptability of image quality (linear-by-linear association; p  = 0.000 in all rates for both readers). The 140 reference mAs is the point at which the tracing rates deteriorate rapidly, with the tracing rate of 41.5% (95% CI 32.6%–51.0%) in reader 1 and 51.9% (95% CI 42.5%–61.2%) in reader 2, and with the acceptable rate of 82.3% (95% CI 70.8%–90.0%) in reader 1 and 96.8% (95% CI 88.3%–99.8%) in reader 2. Conclusion Decreasing the tube charge settings from 280 to 70 reference mAs resulted in a significant reduction in the tracing rate of the ureter, with 140 reference mAs being the breaking point.</description><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Renal Colic - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Ureter - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Urolithiasis - diagnostic imaging</subject><issn>2366-004X</issn><issn>2366-0058</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMottT-AC-y4MVL6uR79yjFLyh4sIK3kG6SuqXdrcmu0H9v6lYRwdPMkGfeCQ9C5wQmBEBdRwAqCQYiMRS0wLsjNKRMpglEfvzT89cBGse4AkikIISKUzSgSjFgtBii6XNramuCzT7iJAvOdqWzOBhbmbZqamyb6LLpPKvqrH1zWRtMWdXLrPFfYxdc68IZOvFmHd34UEfo5e52Pn3As6f7x-nNDJec5S1eSHDMCyBWMaOokLIgpTPWFkLZkitCOfdeeeY5UUC8pGxBvC2kAWuoZWyErvrcbWjeOxdbvali6dZrU7umi5rkTHCQUqiEXv5BV00X6vS7RKkceJ4XkCjSU2VoYgzO622oNibsNAG9l6x7yTqp03vJepd2Lg7J3WLj7M_Gt9IE0B6I6aleuvDr9L-pn916hU8</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Sung, Chang Kyu</creator><creator>Moon, Min Hoan</creator><creator>Son, Hwancheol</creator><creator>Oh, Sohee</creator><creator>Lee, Myoung Seok</creator><creator>Woo, Hyunsik</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2448-2895</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>Standard vs. reduced-radiation-dose CT in the tracing of the ureter</title><author>Sung, Chang Kyu ; Moon, Min Hoan ; Son, Hwancheol ; Oh, Sohee ; Lee, Myoung Seok ; Woo, Hyunsik</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-b60e3f501d73a7256691ceadd957dc471244ff7f3f41701f623b1fd96a0da2d33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Renal Colic - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Ureter - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Urolithiasis - diagnostic imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sung, Chang Kyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moon, Min Hoan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Son, Hwancheol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oh, Sohee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Myoung Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woo, Hyunsik</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sung, Chang Kyu</au><au>Moon, Min Hoan</au><au>Son, Hwancheol</au><au>Oh, Sohee</au><au>Lee, Myoung Seok</au><au>Woo, Hyunsik</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Standard vs. reduced-radiation-dose CT in the tracing of the ureter</atitle><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle><stitle>Abdom Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>900</spage><epage>907</epage><pages>900-907</pages><issn>2366-004X</issn><eissn>2366-0058</eissn><abstract>Purpose To assess the effectiveness of reduced-radiation-dose computed tomography (CT) protocols in the tracing of the ureter in patients with suspected renal colic. Methods The study was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. From July 2012 to April 2014, 310 consecutive patients with suspected urolithiasis were recruited to undergo unenhanced CT at 280 ( n  = 62), 200 ( n  = 62), 140 ( n  = 62), 100 ( n  = 62), and 70 ( n  = 62) reference mA seconds (mAs) while keeping other imaging parameters constant. Images were independently and randomly reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the study to determine the tracing rates of the ureter and the acceptable rates of image quality according to different tube charge settings. Results A significant linear association was noted between tube charge settings, the rates for tracing of the ureter, and the acceptability of image quality (linear-by-linear association; p  = 0.000 in all rates for both readers). The 140 reference mAs is the point at which the tracing rates deteriorate rapidly, with the tracing rate of 41.5% (95% CI 32.6%–51.0%) in reader 1 and 51.9% (95% CI 42.5%–61.2%) in reader 2, and with the acceptable rate of 82.3% (95% CI 70.8%–90.0%) in reader 1 and 96.8% (95% CI 88.3%–99.8%) in reader 2. Conclusion Decreasing the tube charge settings from 280 to 70 reference mAs resulted in a significant reduction in the tracing rate of the ureter, with 140 reference mAs being the breaking point.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>27730329</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00261-016-0929-y</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2448-2895</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2366-004X
ispartof Abdominal imaging, 2017-03, Vol.42 (3), p.900-907
issn 2366-004X
2366-0058
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835406657
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Female
Gastroenterology
Hepatology
Humans
Imaging
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Radiation Dosage
Radiology
Renal Colic - diagnostic imaging
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
Ureter - diagnostic imaging
Urolithiasis - diagnostic imaging
title Standard vs. reduced-radiation-dose CT in the tracing of the ureter
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T21%3A13%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Standard%20vs.%20reduced-radiation-dose%20CT%20in%20the%20tracing%20of%20the%20ureter&rft.jtitle=Abdominal%20imaging&rft.au=Sung,%20Chang%20Kyu&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=900&rft.epage=907&rft.pages=900-907&rft.issn=2366-004X&rft.eissn=2366-0058&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00261-016-0929-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1835406657%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1878048890&rft_id=info:pmid/27730329&rfr_iscdi=true