scholarly journals Evaluation and Comparison of Dose Profiles and Patient Doses among X-ray CT Scanners

2005 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 683-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
KOSUKE MATSUBARA ◽  
KICHIRO KOSHIDA ◽  
MASAYUKI SUZUKI ◽  
ATSUSHI FUKUDA ◽  
CHIKAKO KAWABATA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
X Ray ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 489-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danijela Arandjic ◽  
Dusko Kosutic ◽  
Djordje Lazarevic

This paper shows the results of dose assessment for dental radiographic procedures. Entrance surface doses for 5 different procedures were assessed. More than 15 hospitals, twenty X-ray units in total, were encompassed in this research. Patient doses were estimated based on results of X-ray tube output measurements. Finally, doses were compared with Reference levels. Higher dose values were observed for X-ray units with 50 kVp. In comparison with digital units, doses from other procedures are significantly higher. .


1997 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 1243
Author(s):  
H Okamoto ◽  
T Kumatani ◽  
K Ueda ◽  
O Hiruma ◽  
Y Kumatani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
X Ray ◽  

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kofi Ofori ◽  
Samuel W. Gordon ◽  
Emmanuel Akrobortu ◽  
Adriana A. Ampene ◽  
Emmanuel O. Darko
Keyword(s):  
X Ray ◽  

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad Anwar K. Abdelhalim ◽  
Reuqaya O. Al-Darwish ◽  
Mohammad S. Al-Ayed

2006 ◽  
Vol 79 (937) ◽  
pp. 56-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Mori ◽  
M Endo ◽  
K Nishizawa ◽  
K Murase ◽  
H Fujiwara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 91 (1081) ◽  
pp. 20170285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narumi Taguchi ◽  
Seitaro Oda ◽  
Takeshi Nakaura ◽  
Daisuke Utsunomiya ◽  
Yoshinori Funama ◽  
...  

Objective: Different CT scanners have different X-ray spectra and photon energies indicating that contrast enhancement vary among scanners. However, this issue has not been fully validated; therefore, we performed phantom and clinical studies to assess this difference. Methods: Two scanners were used: scanner-A and scanner-B. In the phantom study, we compared the contrast enhancement between the scanners at tube voltage peaks of 80, 100 and 120 kVp. Then, we calculated the effective energies of the two CT scanners. In the clinical study, 40 patients underwent abdominal scanning with scanner-A and another 40 patients with scanner-B, with each group using the same scanning protocol. The contrast enhancement of abdominal organs was assessed quantitatively (based on the absolute difference between the attenuation of unenhanced scans and contrast-enhanced scans) and qualitatively. A two-tailed independent Student's t-test and or the Mann–Whitney U test were used to compare the discrepancies. Results: In the phantom study, contrast enhancement for scanner-B was 36.9, 32.6 and 30.8% higher than that for scanner-A at 80, 100 and 120 kVp, respectively. The effective energies were higher for scanner-A than for scanner-B. In the quantitative analysis for the clinical study, scanner-B yielded significantly better contrast enhancement of the hepatic parenchyma, pancreas, kidney, portal vein and inferior vena cava compared with that of scanner-A. The mean visual scores for contrast enhancement were also significantly higher on images obtained by scanner-B than those by scanner-A. Conclusion: There were significant differences in contrast enhancement of the abdominal organs between the compared CT scanners from two different vendors even at the same scanning and contrast parameters. Advances in knowledge: Awareness of the impact of different X-ray energies on the resultant attenuation of contrast material is important when interpreting clinical CT images.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document