Influence of Different Arm Positions in the Localizer Radiograph(s) on Patient Dose during Exposure-Controlled CT Examinations of the Neck to Pelvis.
arm positions
computed tomography
localizer radiograph
organ-based dose optimization
radiation dose
Journal
Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)
ISSN: 2379-139X
Titre abrégé: Tomography
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101671170
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 07 2021
29 07 2021
Historique:
received:
03
06
2021
revised:
25
07
2021
accepted:
26
07
2021
entrez:
27
8
2021
pubmed:
28
8
2021
medline:
25
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Our aim was to examine the impact of different arm positions during imaging of the localizer radiograph(s) on effective dose for exposure-controlled computed tomography (CT) (Siemens/Canon) scans of the neck to pelvis. An anthropomorphic whole-body phantom was scanned from the neck to pelvis with the arms positioned in three different ways during the acquisition of the localizer radiograph: (i) above the head, (ii) alongside the trunk, and (iii) along the trunk with the hands placed on the abdomen. In accordance with clinical routines, the arms were not included in the subsequent helical scans. Effective doses were computed to a standard-sized patient (male/female) using a dedicated system-specific Monte Carlo-based software. Effective doses for the Canon CT scanner for the different alternatives (male/female) were (a) 5.3/6.62 mSv, (b) 5.62/7.15 mSv and (c) 5.92/7.44 mSv. For the Siemens CT scanner, effective doses were (a) 4.47/5.59 mSv, (b) 5.4/6.69 mSv and (c) 5.7/6.99 mSv. Arms placed above the head during localizer radiograph imaging in the current CT procedures substantially reduced the total effective dose to the patient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34449741
pii: tomography7030028
doi: 10.3390/tomography7030028
pmc: PMC8396306
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
313-322Références
Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332
pubmed: 18082557
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016 Jun;169(1-4):84-91
pubmed: 26567324
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):285-91
pubmed: 24589404
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 19;10(3):e0118585
pubmed: 25790222
BMJ. 2000 Mar 4;320(7235):593-4
pubmed: 10698858
Radiology. 2004 Sep;232(3):735-8
pubmed: 15273333
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):297-301
pubmed: 11159060
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Dec 14;169(22):2078-86
pubmed: 20008690
Lancet. 2012 Aug 4;380(9840):499-505
pubmed: 22681860
BMJ. 2019 Jan 2;364:k4931
pubmed: 30602590
Radiographics. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):503-12
pubmed: 16549613
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Nov 29;18(1):529
pubmed: 29187165
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jul;199(1):W65-73
pubmed: 22733933
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2021 Apr 13;:
pubmed: 33851201
Radiology. 2010 Oct;257(1):158-66
pubmed: 20851940
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Mar;200(3):537-44
pubmed: 23436842
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Mar;186(3):673-9
pubmed: 16498094
Rofo. 2002 Dec;174(12):1570-6
pubmed: 12471531
Nucl Med Commun. 2021 Jan;42(1):107-112
pubmed: 33079892
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
pubmed: 18046031
Eur Radiol. 2019 Aug;29(8):4315-4323
pubmed: 30560356
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):289-96
pubmed: 11159059
Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2001 Jul-Aug;18(5):307-8
pubmed: 11452401
Eur J Radiol. 2017 May;90:114-128
pubmed: 28583622
Radiographics. 2008 Sep-Oct;28(5):1451-9
pubmed: 18794318