Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Dose Reduction Method according to Slice Thickness Change using Automatic Exposure Controller and Manual Exposure in Intervention

인터벤션에서 자동노출제어장치와 수동노출 사용 시 두께 변화에 따른 선량감소 방안 연구

  • Hwang, Jun-Ho (Department of Radiology, Kyunghee University Hospital) ;
  • Jung, Ku-Min (Department of Radiology, Kyunghee University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Ji-An (Department of Radiology, Kyunghee University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Hyun-Soo (Department of Radiological Technology, Shingu University) ;
  • Lee, Kyung-Bae (Department of Radiology, Kyunghee University Hospital)
  • 황준호 (경희대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 정구민 (경희대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 최지안 (경희대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김현수 (신구대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 이경배 (경희대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2018.02.23
  • Accepted : 2018.04.04
  • Published : 2018.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We aims to perform comparative analysis on the dose area and image qualities varying on the slice thickness when using Automatic Exposure Controller (AEC) and manual exposure; thus, it wants to suggest a measure to reduce exposure dose by setting the optimal examination condition for each slice thickness. The method was to set the thickness as Thin, Normal, and Heavy adult and evaluate the dose area, spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) and Contrast to Noise Ratio (CNR) according to each slice thickness by using the AEC and the manual exposure controller. The dose area according to each slice thickness all increased both when using the AEC and the manual exposure. However, the manual exposure showed lower dose area product than the AEC. Spatial resolutions and low contrast resolutions were all observed to be higher than the evaluation standard. Also, the SNR and CNR of each thickness all increased when using the AEC. When using the manual exposure, SNR and CNR increased in all cases other than the Heavy Adult. Consequently, the Thin and Normal Adult showed dose reduction about 2 times when using the manual exposure controller, while ensuring the image quality. Heavy adult was able to maintain good image quality by using AEC.

Keywords

References

  1. Kalra MK, Quick P, Singh S, Sandborg M, Persson A. Whole Spine CT for Evaluation of Scoliosis in Children: Feasibility of Sub-milli Sievert Scanning Protocol. Acta Radiologica. 2013;54(2):226-30. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.110625
  2. Dazani GB, Valenti R, Migliorini A, Parodi G, Vergara R, Antoniucci D. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusions. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2013;112(12):1849-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.08.012
  3. Gorostidi M, Villalain C, Ruiz R, Jaunarena I, Lekuona A. Technique for Precaval and Laterocaval Nodes Excision at Extraperitoneal Paraaortic Lymphadenectomy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2018;148(1):233-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.030
  4. Matsunaga Y, Kawaguchi A, Kobayashi K, Kobayashi M, Asada Y, Minami K, et al. Patient Exposure during Plain Radiography and Mammography in Japen in 1974-2014. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2017;176(4):347-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncx017
  5. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60; 1990.
  6. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103; 2007.
  7. Crowhurst JA, Whitby M, Thiele D, Halligan T, Westerink A, Crown S, et al. Radiation Dose in Coronary Angiography and Intervention: Initial Result from the Establishment of a Multi Center Diagnostic Reference Level in Queensland Public Hospital. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2014;61(3):135-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.67
  8. Morris GM, Salih Z, Wynn GJ, Ahmed FZ, Brown B, Wright DJ, et al. Patient Radiation Dose during Fluoroscopically Guided Biventricular Device Implantation. Acta Cardiology. 2014;69(5):491-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/AC.69.5.3044875
  9. Coles DR, Smail MA, Negus IS, Wilde P, Oberhoff M, Karsch KR, et al. Comparison of Radiation Doses From Multislice Computerized Tomography Coronary Angiography and Conventional Diagnostic Angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006;47(9):1840-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.11.078
  10. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Avoidance of Radiation Injuries from Medical Interventional Procedures. ICRP Publication 85;2000.
  11. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. ICRP Publication 135; 2017.
  12. Hwang JH, Jung KM, Kim HS, Kang BS, Lee KB. Dose Reduction According to the Exposure Condition in Intervention Procedure: Focus on the Change of Dose Area and Image Quality. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2017;40(3):393-400 https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2017.40.3.06
  13. Spink C, Avannesov M, Schmidt T, Grass M, Schoen G, Adam G, et al. Noise Reduction Angiographic Imaging Technology Reduces Radiation Dose during Bronchial Artery Embolization. European Journal of Radiology. 2017;97:115-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.10.029
  14. Doyle P, Martin CJ. Calibrating Automatic Exposure Control Devices for Digital Radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2006;51(21):5475-85. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/21/006
  15. Moore CS, Wood TJ, Avery G, Balcam S, Needler L, Joshi H, et al. Automatic Exposure Control Calibration and Optimization for Abdomen, Pelvis and Lumbar spine Imaging with an Agfa Computed Radiography System. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2016;61(21):N551-64. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/21/N551
  16. Hwang JH, Lee KB. A study on the Quantitative Analysis Method through the Absorbed Dose and the Histogram in the Performance Evaluation of the Detector according to the Sensitivity Change of Auto Exposure Control(AEC) in DR(Digital Radiography). Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2018;18(1):232-40. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2018.18.01.232
  17. Kang BS, Yoon YS. Evaluation of Patient Radiation Doses Using DAP Meter in Interventional Radiology Procedures. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2017;40(1):27-34.
  18. Oliveira da Silva MV, Canevaro LV, Hunt J, Rodrigues BBD. Comparing Measured and Calculated Doses in Interventional Cardiology Procedures. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2017;176(4):439-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncx029
  19. Shepard SJ, Flynn M, Gingold E, Goldman L, Krugh K, Leong DL, et al. An Exposure Indicator for Digital Radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive Summary), Journal of Medical Physics. 2009;36(7):2898-914. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3121505
  20. Sebert JA, Morin RL. The Standardized Exposure Index for Digital Radiography: an Opportunity for Optimization of Radiation Dose to the Pediatric Population. Journal of Pediatric Radiology. 2011;41(5):573-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-010-1954-6
  21. Hong SS, Kim HC. A Study on Dose and Image Quality according to X-ray Photon Detection Method in Digital Radiography System. Journal of the Institute of Electronics Engineers of Korea. 2013;50(12):247-53.
  22. Uffmann M, Schaefer-prokop C. Digital radiography:The Balance Between Image and Required Radiation Dose. European Journal Radiology. 2009;72(2):202-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.060
  23. Ionita CN, Dohatcu A, Jain A, Keleshis C, Hoffmann KR, Bednarek DR, et al. Modification of the NEMA XR21-2000 Cardiac Phantom for Testing of Imaging Systems used in Endovascular Image Guided Interventions. Physics of Medical Imaging. 2009;7258:72584R-9.
  24. Kang BS, Son JH, Kim SC. Establishment of Quality Control System for Angiographic Unit. Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2011;11(1):236-44. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2011.11.1.236