EFFECT OF TUBE CURRENT VARIATION ON IMAGE QUALITY IN HEAD TRAUMA CT SCANS USING ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31983/jahmt.v8i1.14927Keywords:
CT Scan, head, trauma, iterative reconstruction, mAAbstract
In CT scan trauma, high spatial resolution is used to distinguish the joint gap or fissure caused by trauma. Obtain good image quality, the use of high kV and mAs is the choice. On the other hand, in cases of trauma, the CT scan protocol time (s) is needed to be set faster so that the image results tend to produce a lot of noise. The purpose of this study was to obtain the optimal mAs value to obtain a low radiation dose using iterative reconstruction.
The research method is a quasi-experimental pretest and posttest with control type. The research sample was 3 variations of mA, namely 300 mA, 200 mA and 100 mA with kV 120 and a time of 7.1s on an anthropomorphic phantom of the head with trauma parameters. Measurements were carried out by conducting univariate tests for radiation dose and noise before and after iterative reconstruction was applied.
There was a difference in the radiation dose produced in the CT scan parameters of the head trauma control and treatment groups. In the control group with kV 120 and 300 mA produced a dose of 38.7 mGy, while the treatment group with 200 mA was 25.8 mGy and the lowest dose was 12.9 mGy at a variation of 100 mA. The radiograph results were reconstructed using iterative reconstruction with a standard deviation at 300 mA of 4.4, 200 mA 4.5 and 100 mA 5.8. Based on the results obtained, it shows that mA variations affect the noise uniformity value and the resulting radiation doseReferences
1. Moradi H, Chehre H, Ghaderi B, Saghatchi F, Najafi M, Karami P, et al. Evaluating the Necessity and Radiation Risk of Brain CT Scans Requested by the Trauma Emergency Department. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2023;13(6). doi:10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2012-1251
2. Alzyoud K, Al‐Murshedi S, England A. Diagnostic Reference Levels of Radiographic and CT Examinations in Jordan: A Systematic Review. Health Phys. 2024;126(3):156–62. doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000001778
3. Viry A, Bize J, Trueb PR, Ott B, Racine D, Verdun FR, et al. Annual Exposure of the Swiss Population From Medical Imaging in 2018. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2021;195(3–4):289–95. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncab012
4. Huang R, Liu X, Li H, Zhou P. Radiation Exposure Associated With Computed Tomography in Childhood and the Subsequent Risk of Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. Dose-Response. 2020;18(2):155932582092382. doi:10.1177/1559325820923828
5. Krüger L, Kamp O, Alfen K, Theysohn J, Dudda M, Becker L. Pediatric Carotid Injury After Blunt Trauma and the Necessity of CT and CTA—A Narrative Literature Review. J Clin Med. 2024;13(12):3359. doi:10.3390/jcm13123359
6. Kalra MK, Homayounieh F, Arru C, Holmberg O, Vassileva J. Chest CT practice and protocols for COVID-19 from radiation dose management perspective. Eur Radiol. 2020 Dec 3;30(12):6554–60. doi:10.1007/s00330-020-07034-x
7. Wang X, Shen T, Yang S, Lan J, Xu Y, Wang M, et al. A Deep Learning Algorithm for Automatic Detection and Classification of Acute Intracranial Hemorrhages in Head CT Scans. Neuroimage Clin. 2021;32:102785. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102785
8. Khattak N, Riaz M, Iqbal R, Hussain S, Jawad M, Ahmed F. Computed Tomography Scan Findings in Various Modes of Head Injury, Using Ge Optima 128 Slice CT Scanner. Vol. 16. 2022;16(10):176–8. doi:10.53350/pjmhs221610176
9. Ahmed AM, Awad T, Yousif H, Nahari R, Abdelrhman O, Elhussein N, et al. Incidence of Cerebral Hemorrhage in Traumatic Patients Using Computed Tomography in Tabuk City, Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science. 2020;5(10):460–3. doi:10.23958/ijirms/vol05-i10/971
10. Kular S, Martin A. A Primer in Interpretation of Head CT Scans. Br J Hosp Med. 2019;80(11):C156–61. doi:10.12968/hmed.2019.80.11.c156
11. Fujiwara M, Watanabe Y, Kashiwagi N, Ohta Y, Sato T, Nishigaki M, et al. Improved Visualization of the Chorda Tympani Nerve Using Ultra‐high-Resolution Computed Tomography. Acta Radiol Open. 2021;10(11). doi:10.1177/20584601211061444
12. Knoll RM, Reinshagen KL, Barber SR, Ghanad I, Swanson RL, Smith DH, et al. High Resolution Computed Tomography Atlas of the Porcine Temporal Bone and Skull Base: Anatomical Correlates for Traumatic Brain Injury Research. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(7):1029–39. doi:10.1089/neu.2018.5808
13. Hara AK, et al. Iterative reconstruction techniques in CT: effect on image noise, resolution, and appearance. American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR. 2021.
14. Abuhamed J, Nikkilä A, Lohi O, Auvinen A. Trends of Computed Tomography Use Among Children in Finland. Eur J Radiol Open. 2020;7:100290. doi:10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100290
15. Mukhtar A Al, Bergenfeldt H, Edelhamre M, Vedin T, Larsson PA, Öberg S. The Epidemiology of and Management of Pediatric Patients With Head Trauma: A Hospital-Based Study From Southern Sweden. 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1921944/v1
16. Naseer N, Kapadia NN. PW 2729 Head Injury Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) Rule Corelates With Pattern/Practices of Ct Scan Head Done in Pediatric Patients Coming With Eahhead Trauma in ED- A Retrospective Analysis. 2018;A255.4-A256. doi:10.1136/injuryprevention-2018-safety.706
17. Korn A, et al. Diagnostic performance of iterative reconstruction for low-dose CT in urinary stone detection. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(9):6912–22.
18. McCollough CH, et al. Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on low radiation dose CT. Radiology. 2020;295:460–71.
19. Brady SL, Yee BS, Kaufman RA. Characterization of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm for dose reduction in CT: A pediatric oncology perspective. Med Phys. 2012;39(9):5520–31. doi:10.1118/1.4745563 PubMed PMID: 22957619.
20. Chung MS, Choi YJ, Hwang J, Yoon DH, Seo KJ, Lee JH, et al. Feasibility of Reduced-Dose CT of the Head and Neck With Iterative Reconstruction: A Phantom and Prospective Clinical Study. Acta radiol. 2019;60(11):1457–64. doi:10.1177/0284185119830276
21. Prabsattroo T, Wachirasirikul K, Tansangworn P, Punikhom P, Sudchai W. The Dose Optimization and Evaluation of Image Quality in the Adult Brain Protocols of Multi-Slice Computed Tomography: A Phantom Study. J Imaging. 2023;9(12):264. doi:10.3390/jimaging9120264
22. Singh S, Sukkala R. Evaluation and Comparison of Performance of Low-Dose 128-Slice CT Scanner With Different mAs Values: A Phantom Study. J Carcinog. 2021;20(1):13. doi:10.4103/jcar.jcar_25_20
23. Geyer LL, Körner M, Harrieder A, Mueck F, Deák Z, Wirth S, et al. Dose Reduction in 64-Row Whole-Body CT in Multiple Trauma: An Optimized CT Protocol With Iterative Image Reconstruction on a Gemstone-Based Scintillator. British Journal of Radiology. 2016;89(1061):20160003. doi:10.1259/bjr.20160003
24. Padole A, Khawaja RDA, Kalra MK, Singh S. CT Radiation Dose and Iterative Reconstruction Techniques. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(4):W384–92. doi:10.2214/ajr.14.13241
25. Patiño M, Fuentes JM, Hayano K, Kambadakone A, Uyeda JW, Sahani D V. A Quantitative Comparison of Noise Reduction Across Five Commercial (Hybrid and Model-Based) Iterative Reconstruction Techniques: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(2):W176–83. doi:10.2214/ajr.14.12519
26. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: A retrospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2012;380(9840):499–505. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0 PubMed PMID: 22681860.
