Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Low-Dose Multi-Detector Row CT Urography in Children Patients with Ureteropelvic Junction Stenosis_CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY

Authors：

ZHANG Lizhi , ZENG Hanjiang , HUANG Zixing ,  SONG Bin

Department of Radiology， West China Hospital， Sichuan University， Chengdu 610041， Sichuan Province， China;

Corresponding author：

SONG Bin, Email: cjr.songbin@vip.163.com

Keywords：

Low-dose CT; Urography; Ureteropelvic junction stenosis; CT-dose index weighted; Dose long product

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective 　To assess the radiation dose and image quality with low-dose multi-detector row CT urography （CTU） for the evaluation of children patients with ureteropelvic junction stenosis （UJS）.
Methods 　 In this prospective study， 30 children patients with UJS underwent CTU were classified half-randomly through exam numbers into 3 groups （115 mA， 100 mA， and 75 mA）. Consecutive acquisitions including CT dose index weighted （CTDIw） and dose long product （DLP） were obtained in each patient and compared for each group. Three experienced chest radio-logists were unaware of the CT technique reviewed CT images for overall image quality using a 3-grade scale （excellent， good， and worst）. The data were analyzed using a parametric analysis of variance test and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test.
Results 　The CTDIws of 115 mA group， 100 mA group， and 75 mA group were （7.63±0.83） mGy，（6.29±0.51） mGy， and （4.72±0.18） mGy， respectively， the difference was significant among three groups （F=36.445， P=0.000）. The mean CTDIw reduction was 38.2% in the 75 mA group as compared with 115 mA group （P＜0.001）. The DLPs of 115 mA group， 100 mA group， and 75 mA group were （173.89±29.88） mGy•cm，（145.96±26.21） mGy•cm， and （102.78±12.72） mGy•cm， respectively， the difference was significant among three groups （F=13.955， P=0.000）. The mean radiation dose reduction was 40.9% （75 mA group versus 115 mA group， P＜0.001）. The assessment of image quality was no significant difference with the same protocol and post-processing technique （Wilcoxon’s signed rank test， P＞0.05）. There was a good agreement for image quality scoring among the three reviewers （Kappa=0.736）.
Conclusion 　Low-dose multi-detector row CTU should be considered as a promising technique for the evaluation of children patients with UJS because it could decrease radiation dose and obtain acceptable image quality.

Citation： ZHANG Lizhi,ZENG Hanjiang,HUANG Zixing,SONG Bin,.. Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Low-Dose Multi-Detector Row CT Urography in Children Patients with Ureteropelvic Junction Stenosis. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY, 2013, 20(5): 565-568. doi: Copy

1.	Prokop M. Radiation dose in computed tomography. Risks and challenges[J]. Radiology， 2008， 48(3)：229-242.
2.	Catalano C， Francone M， Ascarelli A， et al. Optimizing radiation dose and image quality[J]. Eur Radiol， 2007， 17 Suppl 6：F26-F32.
3.	Morán LM， Rodríguez R， Calzado A， et al. Image quality and dose evaluation in spiral chest CT examinations of patients with lung carcinoma[J]. Br J Radiol， 2004， 77(922)：839-846.
4.	Mayo JR， Aldrich J， Muller NL， et al. Radiation exposure at chest CT：a statement of the Fleischner Society[J]. Radiology， 2003， 228(1)：15-21.
5.	Tack D， Widelec J， De Maertelaer V， et al. Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol， 2003， 181(4)：939-944.
6.	Hagtvedt T， Aaløkken TM， Nøtthellen J， et al. A new low-dose CT examination compared with standard-dose CT in the diagnosis of acute sinusitis[J]. Eur Radiol， 2003， 13(5)：976-980.
7.	Dinkel HP， Sonnenschein M， Hoppe H， et al. Low-dose multisliceCT of the thorax in follow-up of malignant lymphoma and extrap-ulmonary primary tumors[J]. Eur Radiol， 2003， 13(6)：1241-1249.
8.	Tack D， De Maertelaer V， Gevenois PA. Dose reduction in multid-etector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol， 2003， 181(2)：331-334.
9.	Kalender WA， Wolf H， Suess C， et al. Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers[J]. Eur Radiol， 1999， 9(2)：323-328.
10.	Gies M， Kalender WA， Wolf H， et al. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies[J]. Med Phys， 1999， 26(11)：2235-2247.
11.	Golding SJ， Shrimpton PC. Radiation dose in CT：are we meetingthe challenge?[J]. Br J Radiol， 2002， 75(889)：1-4.

1. Prokop M. Radiation dose in computed tomography. Risks and challenges[J]. Radiology， 2008， 48(3)：229-242.
2. Catalano C， Francone M， Ascarelli A， et al. Optimizing radiation dose and image quality[J]. Eur Radiol， 2007， 17 Suppl 6：F26-F32.
3. Morán LM， Rodríguez R， Calzado A， et al. Image quality and dose evaluation in spiral chest CT examinations of patients with lung carcinoma[J]. Br J Radiol， 2004， 77(922)：839-846.
4. Mayo JR， Aldrich J， Muller NL， et al. Radiation exposure at chest CT：a statement of the Fleischner Society[J]. Radiology， 2003， 228(1)：15-21.
5. Tack D， Widelec J， De Maertelaer V， et al. Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol， 2003， 181(4)：939-944.
6. Hagtvedt T， Aaløkken TM， Nøtthellen J， et al. A new low-dose CT examination compared with standard-dose CT in the diagnosis of acute sinusitis[J]. Eur Radiol， 2003， 13(5)：976-980.
7. Dinkel HP， Sonnenschein M， Hoppe H， et al. Low-dose multisliceCT of the thorax in follow-up of malignant lymphoma and extrap-ulmonary primary tumors[J]. Eur Radiol， 2003， 13(6)：1241-1249.
8. Tack D， De Maertelaer V， Gevenois PA. Dose reduction in multid-etector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol， 2003， 181(2)：331-334.
9. Kalender WA， Wolf H， Suess C， et al. Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers[J]. Eur Radiol， 1999， 9(2)：323-328.
10. Gies M， Kalender WA， Wolf H， et al. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies[J]. Med Phys， 1999， 26(11)：2235-2247.
11. Golding SJ， Shrimpton PC. Radiation dose in CT：are we meetingthe challenge?[J]. Br J Radiol， 2002， 75(889)：1-4.

Previous Article
Inducing Human Embryonic Stem Cells to Become Cardiomyocytes by Direct Adherence Method
Next Article
MicroRNA-129 Promotes Cardiomyogenesis in Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells

CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY

Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Low-Dose Multi-Detector Row CT Urography in Children Patients with Ureteropelvic Junction Stenosis

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content