Neuroradiology

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 247–254

Radiation dose optimization in pediatric temporal bone computed tomography: influence of tube tension on image contrast and image quality

  • Claude Bertrand Nauer
  • Christoph Zubler
  • Christian Weisstanner
  • Christof Stieger
  • Pascal Senn
  • Andreas Arnold
Paediatric Neuroradiology

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate the effect of tube tension reduction on image contrast and image quality in pediatric temporal bone computed tomography (CT).

Methods

Seven lamb heads with infant-equivalent sizes were scanned repeatedly, using four tube tensions from 140 to 80 kV while the CT-Dose Index (CTDI) was held constant. Scanning was repeated with four CTDI values from 30 to 3 mGy. Image contrast was calculated for the middle ear as the Hounsfield unit (HU) difference between bone and air and for the inner ear as the HU difference between bone and fluid. The influence of tube tension on high-contrast detail delineation was evaluated using a phantom. The subjective image quality of eight middle and inner ear structures was assessed using a 4-point scale (scores 1–2 = insufficient; scores 3–4 = sufficient).

Results

Middle and inner ear contrast showed a near linear increase with tube tension reduction (r = −0.94/−0.88) and was highest at 80 kV. Tube tension had no influence on spatial resolution. Subjective image quality analysis showed significantly better scoring at lower tube tensions, with highest image quality at 80 kV. However, image quality improvement was most relevant for low-dose scans.

Conclusions

Image contrast in the temporal bone is significantly higher at low tube tensions, leading to a better subjective image quality. Highest contrast and best quality were found at 80 kV. This image quality improvement might be utilized to further reduce the radiation dose in pediatric low-dose CT protocols.

Keywords

Image quality Temporal bone CT Tube tension Radiation exposure to patients Pediatric CT 

References

  1. 1.
    Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, Shah ND, Nasir K, Einstein AJ, Nallamothu BK (2009) Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 361(9):849–857. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0901249 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357(22):2277–2284. doi:10.1056/NEJMra072149 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linet MS, Kim KP, Rajaraman P (2009) Children’s exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol 39(Suppl 1):S4–S26. doi:10.1007/s00247-008-1026-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(2):289–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J, Roskopf ML (2004) Patient size and X-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. II. Image quality. Med Phys 31(3):595–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC, Wall BF (2002) Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. Br J Radiol 75(898):819–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bettman R, Beek E, Van Olphen A, Zonneveld F, Huizing E (2004) MRI versus CT in assessment of cochlear patency in cochlear implant candidates. Acta Otolaryngol 124(5):577–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robson CD (2006) Congenital hearing impairment. Pediatr Radiol 36(4):309–324. doi:10.1007/s00247-005-0042-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vazquez E, Castellote A, Piqueras J, Mauleon S, Creixell S, Pumarola F, Figueras C, Carreno JC, Lucaya J (2003) Imaging of complications of acute mastoiditis in children. Radiographics 23(2):359–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radiation risks and pediatric computed tomography (CT): a guide for health care providers National Cancer Institute Website. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/radiation/radiation-risks-pediatric-CT. Accessed 13th of July 2011
  11. 11.
    Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, Johnson ND, Kaste SC, Morrison G, Strauss KJ, Tuggle N (2008) The Image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(2):273–274. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.3526 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vock P (2005) CT dose reduction in children. Eur Radiol 15(11):2330–2340. doi:10.1007/s00330-005-2856-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Szucs-Farkas Z, Semadeni M, Bensler S, Patak MA, von Allmen G, Vock P, Schindera ST (2009) Endoleak detection with CT angiography in an abdominal aortic aneurysm phantom: effect of tube energy, simulated patient size, and physical properties of endoleaks. Radiology 251(2):590–598. doi:10.1148/radiol.2512081687 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wintermark M, Maeder P, Verdun FR, Thiran JP, Valley JF, Schnyder P, Meuli R (2000) Using 80 kVp versus 120 kVp in perfusion CT measurement of regional cerebral blood flow. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21(10):1881–1884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seibel VA, Lavinsky L, De Oliveira JA (2006) Morphometric study of the external and middle ear anatomy in sheep: a possible model for ear experiments. Clin Anat 19(6):503–509. doi:10.1002/ca.20218 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seibel VA, Lavinsky L, Irion K (2006) CT-Scan sheep and human inner ear morphometric comparison. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 72(3):370–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suetens P (2009) Fundamentals of medical imaging, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walsh C, Dowling A, Meade A, Malone J (2005) Subjective and objective measures of image quality in digital fluoroscopy. Radiat Prot Dosim 117(1–3):34–37. doi:10.1093/rpd/nci708 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miracle AC, Mukherji SK (2009) Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30(7):1285–1292. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1654 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J, Roskopf ML (2004) Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. I. Radiation doses. Med Phys 31(3):588–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claude Bertrand Nauer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christoph Zubler
    • 1
  • Christian Weisstanner
    • 1
  • Christof Stieger
    • 3
  • Pascal Senn
    • 4
  • Andreas Arnold
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital BerneBerneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Zentrales Roentgeninstitut, Kantonsspital GraubündenChurSwitzerland
  3. 3.Group for Artificial Hearing Research, ARTORG CenterUniversity BerneBerneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of ENT, Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity Hospital BerneBerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations