Saidu AM, Garba I, Abba M, Yahuza MA, Yusuf L, Tahir NM, Garko SS. Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose in computed tomography urography following tube voltage optimisation.
Radiography (Lond) 2024;
30:301-307. [PMID:
38071938 DOI:
10.1016/j.radi.2023.11.023]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2023] [Revised: 11/05/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 01/15/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Computed tomography urography (CTU) comprehensively evaluates the urinary tract. However, the procedure is associated with a high radiation dose due to multiple scan series and therefore requires optimisation. The study performed CTU protocol optimisation based on a reduction in tube voltage (kV) using quality assurance (QA) phantom and clinical images and evaluated image quality and radiation dose.
METHODS
The study was prospectively conducted on patients referred for CTU. The patients were grouped into A and B and were scanned with the standard protocol, a protocol used for the routine CTU at the CT centre before optimisation, and optimised protocol, a protocol with reduced kV respectively. The protocols were first tried on a quality assurance (QA) phantom before being applied to patients, and image quality was assessed based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). In addition, the clinical images were assessed based on the visibility of the anatomical criteria for CT images by five observers with >5 years of experience. The data were analysed using both visual grading characteristic (VGC) curves and statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 22.0.
RESULTS
The dose was significantly lower in the optimised protocol with a 10 % reduction in both volume computed tomography dose index and (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) for the phantom images, and a 26 % reduction in CTDIvol and 28 % in DLP for the clinical images. However, there was no significant difference in image quality noted between the standard and optimised protocols based on the quantitative and qualitative image quality evaluation using both the QA phantom and clinical images.
CONCLUSION
The findings revealed a significant dose reduction in the optimised protocol. Further, image quality in standard and optimised protocols did not differ significantly based on quantitative and qualitative methods.
IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE
kV optimisation in contrast-enhanced procedures provides dose reduction and should be encouraged in the medical imaging departments.
Collapse