Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Radiation Dose Reduction without Compromise to Image Quality by Alterations of Filtration and Focal Spot Size in Cerebral Angiography

  • Kim, Dong Joon (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Min Keun (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Da Eun (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Jung Han (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Byung Moon (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2016.12.08
  • Accepted : 2017.02.27
  • Published : 2017.08.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Different angiographic protocols may influence the radiation dose and image quality. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of filtration and focal spot size on radiation dose and image quality for diagnostic cerebral angiography using an in-vitro model and in-vivo patient groups. Materials and Methods: Radiation dose and image quality were analyzed by varying the filtration and focal spot size on digital subtraction angiography exposure protocols (1, inherent filtration + large focus; 2, inherent + small; 3, copper + large; 4, copper + small). For the in-vitro analysis, a phantom was used for comparison of radiation dose. For the in-vivo analysis, bilateral paired injections, and patient cohort groups were compared for radiation dose and image quality. Image quality analysis was performed in terms of contrast, sharpness, noise, and overall quality. Results: In the in-vitro analysis, the mean air kerma (AK) and dose area product (DAP)/frame were significantly lower with added copper filtration (protocols 3 and 4). In the in-vivo bilateral paired injections, AK and DAP/frame were significantly lower with filtration, without significant difference in image quality. The patient cohort groups with added filtration (protocols 3 and 4) showed significant reduction of total AK and DAP/patient without compromise to the image quality. Variations in focal spot size showed no significant differences in radiation dose and image quality. Conclusion: Addition of filtration for angiographic exposure studies can result in significant total radiation dose reduction without loss of image quality. Focal spot size does not influence radiation dose and image quality. The routine angiographic protocol should be judiciously investigated and implemented.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Yonsei University College of Medicine

References

  1. Alexander MD, Oliff MC, Olorunsola OG, Brus-Ramer M, Nickoloff EL, Meyers PM. Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic interventional neuroradiology procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2010;2:6-10 https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis.2009.000802
  2. Cohnen M, Wittsack HJ, Assadi S, Muskalla K, Ringelstein A, Poll LW, et al. Radiation exposure of patients in comprehensive computed tomography of the head in acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1741-1745
  3. Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Schueler BA, Geisinger M, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:711-727 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000079980.80153.4B
  4. O'Brien B, van der Putten W. Quantification of risk-benefit in interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008;129:59-62 https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncn040
  5. Orbach DB, Stamoulis C, Strauss KJ, Manchester J, Smith ER, Scott RM, et al. Neurointerventions in children: radiation exposure and its import. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:650-656 https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3758
  6. Kei Ma W, Hogg P, Norton S. Effects of kilovoltage, milliampere seconds, and focal spot size on image quality. Radiol Technol 2014;85:479-485
  7. Goh YP, Lau KK, Low K, Buchan K, Oh LC, Kuganesan A, et al. Fine focal spot size improves image quality in computed tomography abdomen and pelvis. Eur Radiol 2016;26:4545-4550 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4313-7
  8. Soderman M, Mauti M, Boon S, Omar A, Marteinsdottir M, Andersson T, et al. Radiation dose in neuroangiography using image noise reduction technology: a population study based on 614 patients. Neuroradiology 2013;55:1365-1372 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-013-1276-0
  9. Mahesh M. Fluoroscopy: patient radiation exposure issues. Radiographics 2001;21:1033-1045 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.4.g01jl271033
  10. Aichinger H. Radiation exposure and image quality in X-ray diagnostic radiology: physical principles and clinical applications, 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer, 2012
  11. Kahn EN, Gemmete JJ, Chaudhary N, Thompson BG, Chen K, Christodoulou EG, et al. Radiation dose reduction during neurointerventional procedures by modification of default settings on biplane angiography equipment. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:819-823 https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011891
  12. Honarmand AR, Shaibani A, Pashaee T, Syed FH, Hurley MC, Sammet CL, et al. Subjective and objective evaluation of image quality in biplane cerebral digital subtraction angiography following significant acquisition dose reduction in a clinical setting. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:297-301 https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012296
  13. Nicholson R, Tuffee F, Uthappa MC. Skin sparing in interventional radiology: the effect of copper filtration. Br J Radiol 2000;73:36-42 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.73.865.10721318
  14. Kohn ML, Gooch AW Jr, Keller WS. Filters for radiation reduction: a comparison. Radiology 1988;167:255-257 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.167.1.3347728
  15. Law J. The influence of focal spot size on image resolution and test phantom scores in mammography. Br J Radiol 1993;66:441-446 https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-66-785-441
  16. Chun CW, Kim BS, Lee CH, Ihn YK, Shin YS. Patient radiation dose in diagnostic and interventional procedures for intracranial aneurysms: experience at a single center. Korean J Radiol 2014;15:844-849 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.6.844
  17. Bushberg J, Seibert J, Leidholdt J, Boone J. The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Willians & Wilkins, 2012
  18. Wagner LK, Eifel PJ, Geise RA. Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1994;5:71-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1051-0443(94)71456-1
  19. Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients' skin and hair. Radiology 2010;254:326-341 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2542082312
  20. Sanchez RM, Vano E, Fernandez JM, Moreu M, Lopez-Ibor L. Brain radiation doses to patients in an interventional neuroradiology laboratory. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1276-1280 https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3884
  21. Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB, Miller DL, Vano E, Bartal G, et al. Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20(7 Suppl):S263-S273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.037
  22. Soderman M, Holmin S, Andersson T, Palmgren C, Babic D, Hoornaert B. Image noise reduction algorithm for digital subtraction angiography: clinical results. Radiology 2013;269:553-560 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121262
  23. Schneider T, Wyse E, Pearl MS. Analysis of radiation doses incurred during diagnostic cerebral angiography after the implementation of dose reduction strategies. J Neurointerv Surg 2016 Apr 7 [Epub ahead of print]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012204
  24. Pearl MS, Torok C, Wang J, Wyse E, Mahesh M, Gailloud P. Practical techniques for reducing radiation exposure during cerebral angiography procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:141-145 https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010982
  25. Poletti J, McLean D. Monte Carlo simulation of the effect of focal spot size on contrast-detail detectability. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2012;35:41-48 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-011-0118-9
  26. Sickles EA. Further experience with microfocal spot magnification mammography in the assessment of clustered breast microcalcifications. Radiology 1980;137(1 Pt 1):9-14 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.137.1.7422866

Cited by

  1. Age of Data in Contemporary Research Articles Published in Representative General Radiology Journals vol.19, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.6.1172
  2. Increase in fluoroscopic radiation dose in successive sessions of multistage Onyx embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations compared with the first session vol.10, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013706
  3. Equivalent thicknesses of beam hardening filters consisting of aluminium, copper, Al/Cu and Al/Gold combinations and plumbiferous acrylic for 40 to 150 kVp diagnostic spectra vol.38, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/aadaf4
  4. A Glimpse on Trends and Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology vol.20, pp.12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0928
  5. Comparison of Transfemoral Cerebral Angiography and Transradial Cerebral Angiography Following a Shift in Practice During Four Years at a Single Center in China vol.26, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.921631
  6. Low-Dose Fluoroscopy Protocol for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography vol.15, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5469/neuroint.2020.00129
  7. Evaluation of radiation dose reduction by barium composite shielding in an angiography system vol.176, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/10420150.2020.1849213