Advertisement

Should radiologists care about kV? Phantom and clinical study of effects of kV on hemoperitoneum HU in the setting of splenic injuries

  • Dillon HickmanEmail author
  • Jie Zhang
  • Kristen McQuerry
  • James Lee
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Evaluate the potential effects of X-ray tube voltage (kV) changes on Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements of hemoperitoneum in patients with blunt splenic injuries.

Methods

Eight different tissue equivalent electron density plugs in the Electron Density Phantom were scanned (muscle, adipose, breast, liver, lung (exhale), lung (inhale), trabecular bone, and dense bone). The phantom was scanned at different kV values (70, 80, 100, 120, and 140 kV). In the clinical study, the local trauma registry database was queried for splenic injuries between January 2015 and December 2016 with a final cohort of 110 patients. The average HU numbers of hemoperitoneum found in three different anatomic locations (pelvic, perisplenic, and perihepatic) were compared at different kV values (100 kV, 120 kV, and 140 kV). ANOVA and pairwise t tests were performed for statistical analysis.

Results

In both studies, HU measurements generally decreased as kV increased, and vice versa. One hundred ten patients were reviewed: 29 for 100 kV, 66 for 120 kV, and 15 for 140 kV. For the perihepatic group, significant differences were observed in average HU in the following pairwise comparisons: 100/140 (13.7 (5.3), p < 0.05) and 120/140 (10.3 (4.5), p < 0.05). For the perisplenic group, significant differences were observed in 100/120 (7.0 (3.5), p < 0.05) and 100/140 (13.2 (4.9), p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the pelvic location (p = 0.5594).

Conclusions

HU measurements of hemoperitoneum in patients with blunt splenic injuries significantly varied with the use of different kV values. Radiologists should be aware of the possible effects of altering kV on HU.

Keywords

CARE kV Computed tomography Automated dose-optimized tube voltage selection Hemoperitoneum Hounsfield unit Tube voltage 

Notes

Funding information

The project described was partially supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, UL1TR000117, and the Dean of the College of Medicine, University of Kentucky.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the University of Kentucky.

References

  1. 1.
    Storrs C (2013) Do CT scans cause cancer? Sci Am 309(1):30–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rizzo S, Kalra M, Schmidt B, Dalal T, Suess C, Flohr T, Blake M, Saini S (2006) Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(3):673–679.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1513 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(3):764–771.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2397 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu L, Fletcher JG, Grant KL, Carter RE, Hough DM, Barlow JM, Vrtiska TJ, Williamson EE, Young PM, Goss BC, Shiung M, Leng S, Raupach R, Schmidt B, Flohr T, McCollough CH (2013) Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in vascular and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(2):W297–W306.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9610 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hu L, Wang Y, Hou H, Wei F, Yang G, Chen Y (2014) Radiation dose and image quality with abdominal computed tomography with automated dose-optimized tube voltage selection. J Int Med Res 42(4):1011–1017.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060513496173 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunnick NR, Korobkin M, Francis I (1996) Adrenal radiology: distinguishing benign from malignant adrenal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167(4):861–867.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819372 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaerte SC, Meyer CA, Winer-Muram HT, Tarver RD, Conces DJ, Jr (2002) Fat-containing lesions of the chest. Radiographics 22 Spec No:S61–78.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.22.suppl_1.g02oc08s61 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wood CG 3rd, Stromberg LJ 3rd, Harmath CB, Horowitz JM, Feng C, Hammond NA, Casalino DD, Goodhartz LA, Miller FH, Nikolaidis P (2015) CT and MR imaging for evaluation of cystic renal lesions and diseases. Radiographics 35(1):125–141.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.351130016 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cressoni M, Gallazzi E, Chiurazzi C, Marino A, Brioni M, Menga F, Cigada I, Amini M, Lemos A, Lazzerini M, Carlesso E, Cadringher P, Chiumello D, Gattinoni L (2013) Limits of normality of quantitative thoracic CT analysis. Crit Care 17(3):R93.  https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12738 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Federle MP, Jeffrey RB Jr (1983) Hemoperitoneum studied by computed tomography. Radiology 148(1):187–192.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.148.1.6856833 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore EE, Moore JB, Van Duzer-Moore S, Thompson JS (1980) Mandatory laparotomy for gunshot wounds penetrating the abdomen. Am J Surg 140(6):847–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roberts JL, Dalen K, Bosanko CM, Jafir SZ (1993) CT in abdominal and pelvic trauma. Radiographics 13(4):735–752.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.13.4.8356265 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of MedicineUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations