Cargando…

Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation

The purpose of this study was to reduce pediatric doses while maintaining or improving image quality scores without removing the grid from X‐ray beam. This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Three piglets (5, 14, and 20 kg) were imaged using six different selectab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strauss, Keith J., Racadio, John M., Abruzzo, Todd A., Johnson, Neil D., Patel, Manish N., Kukreja, Kamlesh U., den Hartog, Mark. J. H., Hoornaert, Bart P.A., Nachabe, Rami A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26699297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5379
_version_ 1783279543945003008
author Strauss, Keith J.
Racadio, John M.
Abruzzo, Todd A.
Johnson, Neil D.
Patel, Manish N.
Kukreja, Kamlesh U.
den Hartog, Mark. J. H.
Hoornaert, Bart P.A.
Nachabe, Rami A.
author_facet Strauss, Keith J.
Racadio, John M.
Abruzzo, Todd A.
Johnson, Neil D.
Patel, Manish N.
Kukreja, Kamlesh U.
den Hartog, Mark. J. H.
Hoornaert, Bart P.A.
Nachabe, Rami A.
author_sort Strauss, Keith J.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to reduce pediatric doses while maintaining or improving image quality scores without removing the grid from X‐ray beam. This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Three piglets (5, 14, and 20 kg) were imaged using six different selectable detector air kerma ([Formula: see text]) per frame values (100%, 70%, 50%, 35%, 25%, 17.5%) with and without the grid. Number of distal branches visualized with diagnostic confidence relative to the injected vessel defined image quality score. Five pediatric interventional radiologists evaluated all images. Image quality score and piglet [Formula: see text] were statistically compared using analysis of variance and receiver operating curve analysis to define the preferred dose setting and use of grid for a visibility of 2nd and 3rd order vessel branches. Grid removal reduced both dose to subject and imaging quality by 26%. Third order branches could only be visualized with the grid present; 100% detector [Formula: see text] was required for smallest pig, while 70% detector [Formula: see text] was adequate for the two larger pigs. Second order branches could be visualized with grid at 17.5% detector [Formula: see text] for all three pig sizes. Without the grid, 50%, 35%, and 35% detector [Formula: see text] were required for smallest to largest pig, respectively. Grid removal reduces both dose and image quality score. Image quality scores can be maintained with less dose to subject with the grid in the beam as opposed to removed. Smaller anatomy requires more dose to the detector to achieve the same image quality score. PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.57.N‐, 87.57.cj, 87.59.cf, 87.59.Dj
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690159
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56901592018-04-02 Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation Strauss, Keith J. Racadio, John M. Abruzzo, Todd A. Johnson, Neil D. Patel, Manish N. Kukreja, Kamlesh U. den Hartog, Mark. J. H. Hoornaert, Bart P.A. Nachabe, Rami A. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging The purpose of this study was to reduce pediatric doses while maintaining or improving image quality scores without removing the grid from X‐ray beam. This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Three piglets (5, 14, and 20 kg) were imaged using six different selectable detector air kerma ([Formula: see text]) per frame values (100%, 70%, 50%, 35%, 25%, 17.5%) with and without the grid. Number of distal branches visualized with diagnostic confidence relative to the injected vessel defined image quality score. Five pediatric interventional radiologists evaluated all images. Image quality score and piglet [Formula: see text] were statistically compared using analysis of variance and receiver operating curve analysis to define the preferred dose setting and use of grid for a visibility of 2nd and 3rd order vessel branches. Grid removal reduced both dose to subject and imaging quality by 26%. Third order branches could only be visualized with the grid present; 100% detector [Formula: see text] was required for smallest pig, while 70% detector [Formula: see text] was adequate for the two larger pigs. Second order branches could be visualized with grid at 17.5% detector [Formula: see text] for all three pig sizes. Without the grid, 50%, 35%, and 35% detector [Formula: see text] were required for smallest to largest pig, respectively. Grid removal reduces both dose and image quality score. Image quality scores can be maintained with less dose to subject with the grid in the beam as opposed to removed. Smaller anatomy requires more dose to the detector to achieve the same image quality score. PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.57.N‐, 87.57.cj, 87.59.cf, 87.59.Dj John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690159/ /pubmed/26699297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5379 Text en © 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Strauss, Keith J.
Racadio, John M.
Abruzzo, Todd A.
Johnson, Neil D.
Patel, Manish N.
Kukreja, Kamlesh U.
den Hartog, Mark. J. H.
Hoornaert, Bart P.A.
Nachabe, Rami A.
Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
title Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
title_full Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
title_fullStr Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
title_short Comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
title_sort comparison of pediatric radiation dose and vessel visibility on angiographic systems using piglets as a surrogate: antiscatter grid removal vs. lower detector air kerma settings with a grid — a preclinical investigation
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26699297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5379
work_keys_str_mv AT strausskeithj comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT racadiojohnm comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT abruzzotodda comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT johnsonneild comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT patelmanishn comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT kukrejakamleshu comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT denhartogmarkjh comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT hoornaertbartpa comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation
AT nachaberamia comparisonofpediatricradiationdoseandvesselvisibilityonangiographicsystemsusingpigletsasasurrogateantiscattergridremovalvslowerdetectorairkermasettingswithagridapreclinicalinvestigation