4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Radiation dose is reduced with a single-pass whole-body multi-detector row CT trauma protocol compared with a conventional segmented method: Initial experience

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 229, Issue 3, Pages 902-905

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2293021651

Keywords

computed tomography (CT), image processing; computed tomography (CT), radiation exposure; radiations, exposure to patients and personnel; trauma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiation dose data were collected from a calibrated multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) scanner during trauma CT. One protocol (used with 10 case subjects) involved a single-pass continuous whole-body acquisition from cranial vertex to symphysis pubis, while the other, conventional protocol (used with 10 control subjects) involved scouting and scanning body segments (head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, and pelvis) individually. Technical factors were kept constant within each body segment for the single-pass and the segmented protocols. Statistics included univariate analysis, two-tailed t testing to evaluate statistical significance of the summary statistic, and power and subject population contingency tables. The mean dose length product (DLP) with the single-pass protocol was 17% lower than the sum of the DLPs of each of the individual body segment scans (P < .001). Analysis of power and subject population by using a difference in mean of 500 mGy . cm and an ot of .05 revealed a (1 - beta) of higher than 0.90 for a sample of 10 patients. Thus, a whole-body single-pass trauma protocol, compared with a typical segmented acquisition protocol matched for imaging technique, resulted in reduced total radiation dose. The reduction in radiation dose is thought to represent a reduction in redundant imaging at overlap zones between body segments scanned in the segmental protocol but not in the continuous acquisition. - RSNA, 2003.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available