Assessment of iterative image reconstruction on kidney and liver donors: Potential role of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) technology

The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiation exposure levels in two different types of subjects including liver and kidney donors in diagnostic assessment of transplant operation and also the significance of dose reduction on total effective dose. A number of Sixty subjects (40 males and 20 f...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of radiology 2018-12, Vol.109, p.124-129
Hauptverfasser: Maamoun, I., Khalil, Magdy M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiation exposure levels in two different types of subjects including liver and kidney donors in diagnostic assessment of transplant operation and also the significance of dose reduction on total effective dose. A number of Sixty subjects (40 males and 20 females, average age of 35 ± 10 years) were randomly prospectively recruited and equally divided into two distinct groups namely kidney donors (KD, 24 M and 6 F) and liver donors (LD, 21 M and 9 female). Kidney donors were divided into full dose (KFD, n = 20) group and low dose (KLD, n = 10) group. They had undergone dynamic renal scan using Tc99 m-DTPA, CT renal angiography and x-ray plain radiograph. Liver donors were divided into full dose (LFD, n = 20) and low dose (LLD, n = 10) groups and performed CT liver volumetry. The CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose length product (DLP), total milli-ampere product time mAs, effective dose and image noise index were measured in all subjects of kidney and liver donors comparing full dose and low dose protocols. In comparison of all subjects of kidney donor groups (KFD vs KLD), the parameters (mAs = 16386.8 ± 3140.7 vs 2830.286 ± 831.676), (CTDIvol = 183.19 ± 32.58 mGy vs. 45.5 ± 13.3 mGy), DLP = 2884 ± 859.0 mGy.cm vs. 1437.5 ± 399 mGy.cm) and (effective dose = 49.0 ± 9.0 mSv vs. 18.9 mSv±5.7 mSv) were significant, p 
ISSN:0720-048X
1872-7727
DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.10.020