HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Paulson, E. K. Articles by Frush, D. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Paulson, E. K. Articles by Frush, D. P. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Conventional and Reduced Radiation Dose of 16-MDCT for Detection of Nephrolithiasis and Ureterolithiasis

¹ Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710.
² Present address: Northside Radiology Associates, Atlanta, GA.
³ Present address: Department of Radiology, Montfort Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

OBJECTIVE. Our purpose was to prospectively compare the reader compatibility and acceptability of a range of reduced-dose 16-MDCT images with standard-dose 16-MDCT images for the detection of nephroureterolithiasis using a dose reduction simulation technique.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. The study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Fifty consecutive patients with suspected nephrolithiasis were recruited to undergo conventional renal stone unenhanced 16-MDCT with at least 160 mA. Noise was then artificially introduced to simulate levels of 70, 100, and 130 mA. Three blinded independent readers interpreted the original and simulated-dose scans for the location and number of renal and ureteral calculi and secondary signs of obstruction using a 5-point confidence scale.

RESULTS. Reader acceptability of scans was inversely related to noise. There was no significant reduction in readers' confidence in detection or exclusion of renal collecting system calculi with simulated reduction of mA of 70, 100, and 130 compared with the standard-dose study. However, for ureteral calcifications, there was a decrease in confidence for the detection or exclusion of ureterolithiasis at an mA of 70 (35 mAs).

CONCLUSION. An mA as low as 70 (35 mAs) is acceptable for evaluation of nephrolithiasis. However, the evaluation of ureterolithiasis is compromised with an mA of 70.

Keywords: helical CT • nephrolithiasis • radiation dose • ureterolithiasis

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. W. Ciaschini, E. M. Remer, M. E. Baker, M. Lieber, and B. R. Herts Urinary Calculi: Radiation Dose Reduction of 50% and 75% at CT--Effect on Sensitivity Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Karmazyn, D. P. Frush, K. E. Applegate, C. Maxfield, M. D. Cohen, and R. P. Jones CT with a Computer-Simulated Dose Reduction Technique for Detection of Pediatric Nephroureterolithiasis: Comparison of Standard and Reduced Radiation Doses Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 143 - 149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]