4.6 Article

Abdominal multislice CT for obese patients: Effect on image quality and radiation dose in a phantom study

期刊

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 486-494

出版社

ASSOC UNIV RADIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.01.030

关键词

computed tomography; abdominal imaging; image quality; radiation dose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale and Objectives. To evaluate the effect of a modified abdominal multislice computed tomography (CT) protocol for obese patients on image quality and radiation dose. Materials and Methods. An adult female anthropomorphic phantom was used to simulate obese patients by adding one or two 4-cm circumferential layers of fat-equivalent material to the abdominal portion. The phantom was scanned with a subcutaneous fat thickness of 0, 4, and 8 cm using the following parameters (detector configuration/beam pitch/table feed per rotation/gantry rotation time/kV/mA): standard protocol A: 16 X 0.625 mm/1.75/17.5 mm/0.5 seconds/ 140/380, and modified protocol B: 16 X 1.25 mm/1.375/27.5 mm/1.0 seconds/140/380. Radiation doses to six abdominal organs and the skin, image noise values, and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were analyzed. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance, Wilcoxon rank sum, and Student's t-test (P <.05). Results. Applying the modified protocol B with one or two fat rings, the image noise decreased significantly (P <.05), and simultaneously, the CNR increased significantly compared with protocol A (P <.05). Organ doses significantly increased, up to 54.7%, comparing modified protocol B with one fat ring to the routine protocol A with no fat rings (P <.05). However, no significant change in organ dose was seen for protocol B with two fat rings compared with protocol A without fat rings (range - 2.1% to 8.1 %) (P >.05). Conclusions. Using a modified abdominal multislice CT protocol for obese patients with 8 cm or more of subcutaneous fat, image quality can be substantially improved without a significant increase in radiation dose to the abdominal organs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据