Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제14권1호
  • /
  • Pages.126-131
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Optimizing Imaging Quality and Radiation Dose by the Age-Dependent Setting of Tube Voltage in Pediatric Chest Digital Radiography

  • Guo, Hui (Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Hospital 1, Medical Imaging Research Center) ;
  • Liu, Wen-Ya (Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Hospital 1, Medical Imaging Research Center) ;
  • He, Xiao-Ye (Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Hospital 1, Medical Imaging Research Center) ;
  • Zhou, Xiao-Shan (Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Hospital 1, Medical Imaging Research Center) ;
  • Zeng, Qun-Li (Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Hospital 1, Medical Imaging Research Center) ;
  • Li, Bai-Yan (Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Hospital 1, Medical Imaging Research Center)
  • 발행 : 2013.02.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The quality and radiation dose of different tube voltage sets for chest digital radiography (DR) were compared in a series of pediatric age groups. Materials and Methods: Forty-five hundred children aged 0-14 years (yr) were randomly divided into four groups according to the tube voltage protocols for chest DR: lower kilovoltage potential (kVp) (A), intermediate kVp (B), and higher kVp (C) groups, and the fixed high kVp group (controls). The results were analyzed among five different age groups (0-1 yr, 1-3 yr, 3-7 yr, 7-11 yr and 11-14 yr). The dose area product (DAP) and visual grading analysis score (VGAS) were determined and compared by using one-way analysis of variance. Results: The mean DAP of protocol C was significantly lower as compared with protocols A, B and controls (p < 0.05). DAP was higher in protocol A than the controls (p <0.001), but it was not statistically significantly different between B and the controls (p = 0.976). Mean VGAS was lower in the controls than all three protocols (p < 0.001 for all). Mean VGAS did not differ between protocols A and B (p = 0.334), but was lower in protocol C than A (p = 0.008) and B (p = 0.049). Conclusion: Protocol C (higher kVp) may help optimize the trade-off between radiation dose and image quality, and it may be acceptable for use in a pediatric age group from these results.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Brenner, D, Elliston, C, Hall, E, Berdon, W,Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 176, 1, 289-296(2001) https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289
  2. Vano, E,ICRP recommendations on 'Managing patient dose in digital radiology', Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 114, 2, 126-130(2005) https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch533
  3. Busch, HP, Faulkner, K,Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation, Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 117, 3, 143-147(2005) https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nci728
  4. Honey, ID, Mackenzie, A, Evans, DS,Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film-screen and computed radiography, Br J Radiol, 78, 4, 422-427(2005) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/32912696
  5. Tingberg, A, Sjöström, D,Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage, Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 114, 5, 286-293(2005) https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch536
  6. Ullman, G, Sandborg, M, Dance, DR, Hunt, RA, Alm Carlsson, G,Towards optimization in digital chest radiography using Monte Carlo modelling, Phys Med Biol, 51, 6, 2729-2743(2006) https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/11/003
  7. Uffmann, M, Neitzel, U, Prokop, M, Kabalan, N, Weber, M, Herold, CJ,Flat-panel-detector chest radiography: effect of tube voltage on image quality, Radiology, 235, 7, 642-650(2005) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2352031730
  8. Rong, XJ, Shaw, CC, Liu, X, Lemacks, MR, Thompson, SK,Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems--a contrast-detail phantom study, Med Phys, 28, 8, 2328-2335(2001) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1408620
  9. Willis, CE,Optimizing digital radiography of children, Eur J Radiol, 72, 9, 266-273(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.003
  10. Saether, HK, Lagesen, B, Traegde Martinsen, AC, Holsen, EP, Ovrebo, KM,Dose levels from thoracic and pelvic examinations in two pediatric radiological departments in Norway - a comparison study of dose-area product and radiographic technique, Acta Radiol, 51, 10, 1137-1142(2010) https://doi.org/10.3109/02841851.2010.515616
  11. Olgar, T, Onal, E, Bor, D, Okumus, N, Atalay, Y, Turkyilmaz, C,Radiation exposure to premature infants in a neonatal intensive care unit in Turkey, Korean J Radiol, 9, 11, 416-419(2008) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.5.416
  12. Samei, E, Hill, JG, Frey, GD, Southgate, WM, Mah, E, Delong, D,Evaluation of a flat panel digital radiographic system for low-dose portable imaging of neonates, Med Phys, 30, 12, 601-607(2003) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1556611
  13. Strotzer, M, Volk, M, Fründ, R, Hamer, O, Zorger, N, Feuerbach, S,Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 178, 13, 169-171(2002) https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.1.1780169
  14. Volk, M, Hamer, OW, Feuerbach, S, Strotzer, M,Dose reduction in skeletal and chest radiography using a large-area flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon and thallium-doped cesium iodide: technical background, basic image quality parameters, and review of the literature, Eur Radiol, 14, 14, 827-834(2004) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2243-2
  15. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in pediatrics. Luxembourg, EC: EUR 16261 report;1996. Available at: http://www.e-radiography.net/ regsetc/European_guide_children_extract.pdf
  16. Yakoumakis, EN, Tsalafoutas, IA, Aliberti, M, Pantos, GI, Yakoumakis, NE, Karaiskos, P,Radiation doses in common X-ray examinations carried out in two dedicated paediatric hospitals, Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 124, 16, 348-352(2007) https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncm220
  17. Dougeni, ED, Delis, HB, Karatza, AA, Kalogeropoulou, CP, Skiadopoulos, SG, Mantagos, SP,Dose and image quality optimization in neonatal radiography, Br J Radiol, 80, 17, 807-815(2007) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/77948690
  18. Bath, M, Mansson, LG,Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation, Br J Radiol, 80, 18, 169-176(2007) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/35012658
  19. Nickoloff, EL, Lu, ZF, Dutta, AK, So, JC,Radiation dose descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and other strange creatures, Radiographics, 28, 19, 1439-1450(2008) https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.285075748
  20. Doherty, P, O'Leary, D, Brennan, PC,Do CEC guidelines under-utilise the full potential of increasing kVp as a dose-reducing tool?, Eur Radiol, 13, 20, 1992-1999(2003) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1810-7
  21. Geijer, H, Norrman, E, Persliden, J,Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector, Br J Radiol, 82, 21, 62-68(2009) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/56572915
  22. Sandborg, M, Tingberg, A, Ullman, G, Dance, DR, Alm Carlsson, G,Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages, Med Phys, 33, 22, 4169-4175(2006) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2362871
  23. Geijer, H, Persliden, J,Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector, Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 114, 23, 240-245(2005) https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch509
  24. Fink, C, Hallscheidt, PJ, Noeldge, G, Kampschulte, A, Radeleff, B, Hosch, WP,Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 178, 24, 481-486(2002) https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780481
  25. Bacher, K, Smeets, P, Bonnarens, K, De Hauwere, A, Verstraete, K, Thierens, H,Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 181, 25, 923-929(2003) https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810923
  26. Moore, CS, Beavis, AW, Saunderson, JR,Investigation of optimum X-ray beam tube voltage and filtration for chest radiography with a computed radiography system, Br J Radiol, 81, 26, 771-777(2008) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/21963665
  27. Billinger, J, Nowotny, R, Homolka, P,Diagnostic reference levels in pediatric radiology in Austria, Eur Radiol, 20, 27, 1572-1579(2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1697-7

피인용 문헌

  1. Effective Dose in Abdominal Digital Radiography: Patient Factors vol.77, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2017.77.2.89
  2. Radiation dose optimisation for conventional imaging in infants and newborns using automatic dose management software: an application of the new 2013/59 EURATOM directive vol.91, pp.1086, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180022
  3. Application of an advanced noise reduction algorithm for imaging of hands in rheumatic diseases: evaluation of image quality compared to standard-dose images vol.40, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-020-04560-1
  4. Influence of the use of various imaging units and projections on the radiation dose received by children during chest digital radiography vol.16, pp.8, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255749