4.3 Article

Retrospective analysis of 1118 outpatient chest CT scans to determine factors associated with excess scan length

Journal

CLINICAL IMAGING
Volume 62, Issue -, Pages 76-80

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.11.020

Keywords

Chest CT; Radiation dose; Excess scanning; Technologist

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale objectives: Excess z-axis scanning continues as an unnecessary source of radiation. This study seeks to determine patient, technologist and CT factors that affect excess scan length for chest CT. Materials and methods: Retrospective evaluation of 1118 consecutive noncontrast chest CT scans, over twelve consecutive months, was performed for evaluation of scan length above and below the lung parenchyma. Scan length >2 cm was considered excessive. Bivariate analysis for mean excess scan length and presence of excess scan length analyzed technologist's exam volume during the study period, patient age, patient gender, day of week, and time of day as categorical variables. Technologists performing >100 chest CT scans during the study period were considered high-volume while all others were considered low-volume. Results: Mean excess scan length was 5 mm, 29 mm, and 33 mm above the lungs, below the lungs, and total. 81% and 95% of studies had excess scanning above the lungs and below the lungs respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that high volume technologists, male patients, and patients younger than 65 had a greater amount of excess scan length and presence of excessive scanning above the lungs; high volume technologists and male patients had a greater amount of excess scan length below the lungs, and high volume technologists and patients older than 65 had greater presence of excessive scanning below the lungs, each p < 0.001. Conclusions: Excess scanning on chest CT is common, varies by patient age and gender and was significantly greater for high volume technologists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available