Journal of Radiation Industry (방사선산업학회지)

Korean Society of Radiation Industry (한국방사선산업학회)
권호 표지

A Noise and Quantity of Exposed Ray for Abdominal Phantom Image

복부 팬텀영상에서 장비별 피폭선량 및 노이즈 비교

  • Moon, Il-Bong (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health University) ;
  • Shin, Ji-Yun (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health University) ;
  • Kwak, Jong-Gil (Department of Public Health and Medicine, Dongshin University Graduate School) ;
  • Jang, Sang-Hyun (Department of Radiology, Dr. Koo's Orthopaedic & Sportsclinic) ;
  • Ryu, Young-Hwan (Department of Radiology, Seoul Medical Center) ;
  • Dong, Kyung-Rae (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health University)
  • 문일봉 (광주보건대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 신지윤 (광주보건대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 곽종길 (동신대학교 보건의료학과) ;
  • 장상현 (구자성정형외과의원) ;
  • 류영환 (서울의료원 영상의학과) ;
  • 동경래 (광주보건대학교 방사선과)
  • Received : 2018.02.06
  • Accepted : 2018.03.17
  • Published : 2018.03.31

⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research is to compare noise and quantity of exposed ray at abdomen with two medical equipment company, GE and Siemens. As well as figuring out which one has high or low quantity of exposed ray and advantages of each equipment in certain areas. This research used SIEMENS (Somatom Definition Flash, Germany) and GE (Discovery CT 750 HD, USA) in 'C' University as CT equipments. For dummy, this research used Rando phantom (Art-20x fluke biomedical, USA) in condition of care dose 4D and care Kv System with Siemens and GE respectively. For slice thickness, this research used 3 mm for Siemens and 3.75 mm for GE and scanned abdomen 4 times with same FOV 38 cm and 80, 100, 120, 140 kVp. This research is to figure out correlation between noise and quantity of rays from changes of tube voltage in each company's equipment for abdominal phantom. Also this paper got the results that average value of noise decreases and values of CTDlvol and DLP increases by increasing tube voltage to 80, 100, 120, 140 kVp respectively. From above research, there is a difference in quantity of ray for patients by type of equipment, even scanning same area. Therefore, there should be appropriate management criteria. With this perception, the limitation of this research used only two different companies' equipment and used standardized phantom that excludes different characteristics by each patient. To increase quality of image with decreasing unnecessary quantity of rays, there should be additional technology development.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Korea Radiation Safety Foundation (KORSAFe), Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC)

References

  1. Dawson P. 2004. Patient dose in multi-slice CT: Why is it increasing and does it matter?. Br. J. Radiol. 77(1):S10-S13. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/23162044
  2. Goo HW. 2005. Pediatric CT : Understanding of radiation and optimization of imaging technupues. J. Korean Soc. Radiol. 52(1):1-5. https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.2005.52.1.1
  3. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD and Fox SH. 2000. Four multidetector-row-helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 215(1):55-62. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00ap3755
  4. ICRP. 2006. Managing Patient Dose in MultiDetector Computed Tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. Pergamoon Press, Oxpord.
  5. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA and Saini S. 2004. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230(3):619-628. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2303021726
  6. Kim YH, Choi JH, Kim SS, Oh YH, Lee CH, Cho OK, Kang DH, Lee YB, Kim HC and Kim CM. 2005. Patient exposure doses from medical x-ray examinations in Korea. J. Radiol. Sci. Technol. 28(3):241-248.
  7. Kwon SO, Dong KR, Kown DC, Goo EH, Choi JW and Chung WK. 2010. Estimate of Radiation Doses in MDCT Using Patient Weight. Prog. Med. Phys. 21(3):246-252.
  8. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA and Forman HP. 2004. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 231(2):393-398. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312030767
  9. Moon IB, Dong KR and Kim KC. 2016. The Impact of the AEC Mode of Tube Current on the Dose at CT Scans. J. Radia. Ind. 10(2):49-54.
  10. Moon IB, Dong KR, Kim MH, Choi SH, Kweon DC and Goo EH. 2017. Measurement of the Noise according to the Slice Thickness in MDCT. J. Radia. Ind. 11(3):151-155.
  11. Moon IB, Kim CB and Dong KR. 2014. The Variation of Noise and Radiation Dose according to the Tube Voltage in MDCT. J. Adv. Eng. Technol. 7(4):175-179.
  12. Schaller S, Wildberger JE, Raupach R, Niethammer M, Klingenbeck-Regn K and Flochr T. 2003. Spatial domain filtering for fast modification of the tradeoff between image sharpness and pixel noise in computed tomography. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22(7):846-853. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2003.815073
  13. Wang Q, Zhao X, Song J, Guo N, Zhu Y, Liu J, Qi W, Wu J, Liang Y, Feng S, Hu M, Zhou C, Wang X and Hong N. 2013. The application of automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) on image quality and radiation dose at abdominal computed tomography (CT): A phantom study. J. Xray Sci. Technol. 21(4):453-464.
  14. Yates SJ, Pike LC and Goldstone KE. 2004. Effect of mul-tislce scanners on patient dose from routine CT examinations in East Anglia. Br. J. Radiol. 77(918):472-478. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/21927258
  15. Yoo HJ, Cheong SM and Suh DS. 2010. Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Neck Angiography: Comparison of Dual Source Computed Tomography and Multi-detector Computed. J. Kor. Soc. Comput. Tomogr. Technol. 12(2):27-32.