Optimizing radiation dose parameters in MDCT arthrography of the shoulder: illustration of basic concepts in a cadaveric study
- 27 Downloads
To determine in a cadaveric study the lowest achievable radiation dose and optimal tube potential generating diagnostic image quality in multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) arthrography of the shoulder.
Materials and methods
Six shoulders from three human cadavers were scanned using a 256-MDCT system after intra-articular injection of diluted iodinated contrast material. Using six decreasing radiation dose levels (CTDIvol: 20, 15, 10, 8, 6, and 4 mGy) and for each dose level, four decreasing tube potentials (140, 120, 100, and 80 kVp), image noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured. Two independent and blinded observers assessed the overall diagnostic image quality, subjective amount of noise, and severity of artifacts according to a four-point scale. Influence of those MDCT data acquisition parameters on objective and subjective image quality was analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and pairwise comparisons were performed.
Multidetector CT protocols with radiation doses of 15 mGy or higher, combined with tube potentials of 100 kVp or higher, were equivalent in CNR to the reference 20 mGy–140 kVp protocol (all p ≥ 0.054). Above a CTDIvol of 10 mGy and a tube potential of 120 kVp, all protocols generated diagnostic image quality and subjective noise equivalent to the 20 mGy–140 kVp protocol (all p ≥ 0.22).
Diagnostic image quality in MDCT arthrography of the shoulder can be obtained with a radiation dose of 10 mGy at an optimal tube potential of 120 kVp, corresponding to a reduction of up to 50% compared with standard-dose protocols, and as high as 500% compared with reported protocols in the literature.
KeywordsMDCT CT Shoulder Arthrography Radiation dose Image quality
We would like to thank the Anatomy Lab of the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, for providing us with the cadavers.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 14.Waldt S, Metz S, Burkart A, Mueller D, Bruegel M, Rummeny EJ, et al. Variants of the superior labrum and labro-bicipital complex: a comparative study of shoulder specimens using MR arthrography, multi-slice CT arthrography and anatomical dissection. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(2):451–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.De Maeseneer M, Boulet C, Pouliart N, Kichouh M, Buls N, Verhelle F, et al. Assessment of the long head of the biceps tendon of the shoulder with 3T magnetic resonance arthrography and CT arthrography. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(5):934–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, Leonardi M, van Persijn van Meerten E, Geleijns J, et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. March 2004. Available from: http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/mainindex.htm.
- 17.FOPH Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Notice R-06-06. Ref R-06-06df. Established 01.04.2010.Google Scholar
- 21.Radiological Society of North America. RadLex: a lexicon for uniform indexing and retrieval of radiology information resources [Internet]. March 2018. Available from: http://radlex.org/.
- 30.Von Falck C, Galanski M, Shin H. Informatics in radiology: sliding-thin-slab averaging for improved depiction of low-contrast lesions with radiation dose savings at thin-section CT. Radiographics. 2010;30:317–26. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.302096007.
- 31.Becce F, Ben Salah Y, Verdun FR, Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Meuli R, et al. Computed tomography of the cervical spine: comparison of image quality between a standard-dose and a low-dose protocol using filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42(7):937–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar