Emergency CT head and neck imaging: effects of swimmer’s position on dose and image quality
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
To compare the effects of different arm positions on dose exposure and image quality (IQ) in cervical spine CT after trauma in different patient groups.
Patients in standard (STD = 126) and in swimmer’s position (SWIM = 254) were included. Body mass index (BMI subgroup 1 = underweight to subgroup 4 = obese), anterior–posterior diameter (AP), left–right diameter (LR), area of an ellipse (AoE) and angle between the humeral heads (optimal STD < 3°, optimal SWIM > 10°) were used as grouping criteria. Computed tomography dose index (CTDI) was documented. Two radiologists rated the IQ at three levels (CV1/2, CV4/5, CV7/T1) using a semi-quantitative scale (0 = not diagnostic, 1 = diagnostic with limitations, 2 = diagnostic without limitations). The Mann–Whitney U test correlations of grouping criteria with dose effects and intra-class correlation (ICC) were calculated.
ICC was 0.87. BMI grouping showed the strongest correlation with dose effects: CTDI of optimal STD versus optimal SWIM positioning was 3.17 mGy versus 2.46 mGy (subgroup 1), 5.47 mGy versus 3.97 mGy (subgroup 2), 7.35 mGy versus 5.96 mGy (subgroup 3) and 8.71 mGy versus 8.18 mGy (subgroup 4). Mean IQ at CV7/T1 was 1.65 versus 1.23 (subgroup 1), 1.27 versus 1.46 (subgroup 2), 1.06 versus 1.46 (subgroup 3), 0.79 versus 1.5 (subgroup 4).
Patients with a BMI > 20 kg/m2 benefited from both potential dose reduction and improved image quality at the critical cervicothoracic junction when swimmer’s position was used.
• BMI is a useful metric for personalized optimization in CT for the c-spine.
• Using swimmer’s position, patients can benefit from dose reduction.
• In some patients a superior image quality can be achieved with swimmer’s position.
• For swimmer’s positioning an angle of more than 10° is optimal.
- Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM, Salisbury SR, Forman HP (2011) National trends in CT use in the emergency department: 1995–2007. Radiology 258:164–173 CrossRef
- American College of Radiology (2009). ACR appropriateness criteria: suspected spine trauma. http://www.acr.org. Accessed 28 June 2013
- Blackmore CC, Ramsey SD, Mann FA, Deyo RA (1999) Cervical spine screening with CT in trauma patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology 212:117–125 CrossRef
- Fleischmann D, Boas FE (2011) Computed tomography–old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 21:510–517 CrossRef
- Geyer LL, Korner M, Hempel R et al (2013) Evaluation of a dedicated MDCT protocol using iterative image reconstruction after cervical spine trauma. Clin Radiol 68:e391–396 CrossRef
- Kropil P, Cohnen M, Andersen K, Heinen W, Stegmann V, Modder U (2010) Image quality in multidetector CT of paranasal sinuses: potential of dose reduction using an adaptive post-processing filter. Rofo 182:973–978 CrossRef
- Kropil P, Lanzman RS, Walther C et al (2010) Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT of the upper abdomen: potential of an adaptive post-processing filter. Rofo 182:248–253 CrossRef
- Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J (2007) A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 34:4526–4544 CrossRef
- McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512 CrossRef
- Baum U, Anders K, Steinbichler G et al (2004) Improvement of image quality of multislice spiral CT scans of the head and neck region using a raw data-based multidimensional adaptive filtering (MAF) technique. Eur Radiol 14:1873–1881 CrossRef
- Mulkens TH, Marchal P, Daineffe S et al (2007) Comparison of low-dose with standard-dose multidetector CT in cervical spine trauma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:1444–1450 CrossRef
- Russell MT, Fink JR, Rebeles F, Kanal K, Ramos M, Anzai Y (2008) Balancing radiation dose and image quality: clinical applications of neck volume CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29:727–731 CrossRef
- Brink M, de Lange F, Oostveen LJ et al (2008) Arm raising at exposure-controlled multidetector trauma CT of thoracoabdominal region: higher image quality, lower radiation dose. Radiology 249:661–670 CrossRef
- Karlo C, Gnannt R, Frauenfelder T et al (2011) Whole-body CT in polytrauma patients: effect of arm positioning on thoracic and abdominal image quality. Emerg Radiol 18:285–293 CrossRef
- Li J, Udayasankar UK, Toth TL, Seamans J, Small WC, Kalra MK (2007) Automatic patient centering for MDCT: effect on radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:547–552 CrossRef
- Loewenhardt B, Buhl M, Gries A et al (2012) Radiation exposure in whole-body computed tomography of multiple trauma patients: bearing devices and patient positioning. Injury 43:67–72 CrossRef
- Wirth S, Meindl T, Treitl M, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser M (2006) Comparison of different patient positioning strategies to minimize shoulder girdle artifacts in head and neck CT. Eur Radiol 16:1757–1762 CrossRef
- Aberle DR, Abtin F, Brown K (2013) Computed tomography screening for lung cancer: has it finally arrived? Implications of the national lung screening trial. J Clin Oncol 31:1002–1008 CrossRef
- Hoang JK, Yoshizumi TT, Nguyen G et al (2012) Variation in tube voltage for adult neck MDCT: effect on radiation dose and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:621–627 CrossRef
- National Lung Screening Trial Research T, Church TR, Black WC et al (2013) Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 368:1980–1991 CrossRef
- Saltzherr TP, Fung Kon Jin PH, Beenen LF, Vandertop WP, Goslings JC (2009) Diagnostic imaging of cervical spine injuries following blunt trauma: a review of the literature and practical guideline. Injury 40:795–800 CrossRef
- WHO (2012) Global database on body mass index. http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage = intro 3.html. Accessed 14 June 2012
- Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D et al (2005) Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225 CrossRef
- EUR 16262 (2012) Quality criteria for computed tomography. http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/download/eur16262.w51. Accessed 21 June 2012
- Mueck FG, Michael L, Deak Z et al (2013) Upgrade to lterative image reconstruction (lR) in MDCT imaging: a clinical study for detailed parameter optimization beyond vendor recommendations using the adaptive statistical lterative reconstruction environment (ASIR) Part 2: the chest. Rofo. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1335152
- Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166 CrossRef
- Hoppe H, Vock P, Bonel HM, Ozdoba C, Gralla J (2006) A novel multiple-trauma CT-scanning protocol using patient repositioning. Emerg Radiol 13:123–128 CrossRef
- Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263 CrossRef
- Kane AG, Reilly KC, Murphy TF (2004) Swimmer's CT: improved imaging of the lower neck and thoracic inlet. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25:859–862
- Zarb F, Rainford L, McEntee MF (2010) AP diameter shows the strongest correlation with CTDI and DLP in abdominal and chest CT. Radiat Prot Dosim 140:266–273 CrossRef
- Emergency CT head and neck imaging: effects of swimmer’s position on dose and image quality
Volume 24, Issue 5 , pp 969-979
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Additional Links
- Patient positioning
- Personalized medicine
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Institut für Klinische Radiologie, LMU Klinikum der Universität München - Innenstadt, Department of Clinical Radiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich - Downtown Campus, Nußbaumstr. 20, 80336, Munich, Germany