Neonatal digital chest radiography- should we be using additional copper filtration?
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
StandardStandard
Yn: British Journal of Radiology, Cyfrol 95, Rhif 1130, 20211026, 01.02.2022.
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Neonatal digital chest radiography- should we be using additional copper filtration?
AU - Tugwell-Allsup, Jenna Ruth
AU - Morris, Rhys Wyn
AU - Thomas, Kate
AU - Hibbs, Richard
AU - England, Andrew
PY - 2022/2/1
Y1 - 2022/2/1
N2 - Objectives: Copper filtration removes lower energy X-ray photons, which do not enhance image quality but would otherwise contribute to patient radiation dose. This study explores the use of additional copper filtration for neonatal mobile chest imaging. Methods: A controlled factorial-designed experiment was used to determine the effect of independent variables on image quality and radiation dose. These variables included: copper filtration (0 Cu, 0.1 Cu and 0.2 Cu), exposure factors, source-to-image distance and image receptor position (direct / tray). Image quality was evaluated using absolute visual grading analysis (VGA) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and entrance surface dose (ESD) was derived using an ionising chamber within the central X-ray beam. Results: VGA, CNR and ESD significantly reduced (p < 0.01) when using added copper filtration. For 0.1 Cu, the percentage reduction was much greater for ESD (60%) than for VGA (14%) and CNR (20%), respectively. When compared to the optimal combinations of parameters for incubator imaging using no copper filtration, an increase in kV and mAs when using 0.1-mm Cu resulted in better image quality at the same radiation dose (direct) or, equal image quality at reduced dose (in-tray). The use of 0.1-mm Cu for neonatal chest imaging with a corresponding increase in kV and mAs is therefore recommended. Conclusion: Using additional copper filtration significantly reduces radiation dose (at increased mAs) without a detrimental effect on image quality. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study, using an anthropomorphic phantom, to explore the use of additional Cu for digital radiography neonatal chest imaging and therefore helps inform practice to standardise and optimise this imaging examination.
AB - Objectives: Copper filtration removes lower energy X-ray photons, which do not enhance image quality but would otherwise contribute to patient radiation dose. This study explores the use of additional copper filtration for neonatal mobile chest imaging. Methods: A controlled factorial-designed experiment was used to determine the effect of independent variables on image quality and radiation dose. These variables included: copper filtration (0 Cu, 0.1 Cu and 0.2 Cu), exposure factors, source-to-image distance and image receptor position (direct / tray). Image quality was evaluated using absolute visual grading analysis (VGA) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and entrance surface dose (ESD) was derived using an ionising chamber within the central X-ray beam. Results: VGA, CNR and ESD significantly reduced (p < 0.01) when using added copper filtration. For 0.1 Cu, the percentage reduction was much greater for ESD (60%) than for VGA (14%) and CNR (20%), respectively. When compared to the optimal combinations of parameters for incubator imaging using no copper filtration, an increase in kV and mAs when using 0.1-mm Cu resulted in better image quality at the same radiation dose (direct) or, equal image quality at reduced dose (in-tray). The use of 0.1-mm Cu for neonatal chest imaging with a corresponding increase in kV and mAs is therefore recommended. Conclusion: Using additional copper filtration significantly reduces radiation dose (at increased mAs) without a detrimental effect on image quality. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study, using an anthropomorphic phantom, to explore the use of additional Cu for digital radiography neonatal chest imaging and therefore helps inform practice to standardise and optimise this imaging examination.
U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20211026
DO - 10.1259/bjr.20211026
M3 - Article
C2 - 34797726
VL - 95
JO - British Journal of Radiology
JF - British Journal of Radiology
SN - 0007-1285
IS - 1130
M1 - 20211026
ER -