AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schindera, S. T.
Right arrow Articles by Yoshizumi, T. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schindera, S. T.
Right arrow Articles by Yoshizumi, T. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

Effect of Patient Size on Radiation Dose for Abdominal MDCT with Automatic Tube Current Modulation: Phantom Study

Sebastian T. Schindera1,2, Rendon C. Nelson2, Thomas L. Toth3, Giao T. Nguyen4, Greta I. Toncheva4, David M. DeLong2 and Terry T. Yoshizumi2,4

1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
2 Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Erwin Rd., Durham, NC 27710.
3 GE Healthcare Inc., Waukesha, WI.
4 Division of Radiation Safety, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.


Figure 1
View larger version (139K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 —Photograph shows female adult anthropomorphic phantom encased with two 4-cm-thick fat rings covering upper abdominal portion. Phantom was placed on wooden board, which was fixed on CT examination table.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (88K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2 —Anteroposterior scout CT image of anthropomorphic phantom shows two 10-cm-wide fat rings covering four sectional slabs of upper abdomen. Fat rings were placed at level of upper abdomen (T12–L3).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (71K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3 —Diagrams of axial CT images show simulated patients scanned with protocols A and B. Top, small patient (phantom without fat ring); middle, average-sized patient (phantom encased by one fat ring); bottom, oversized patient (phantom encased by two fat rings). As cross-sectional diameter of phantom increases, image quality is maintained in protocols A and B. Left bottom image shows region of interest placement for image noise measurement (circle).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4A —Mean radiation dose for skin (+), spleen ({blacktriangleup}), stomach ({blacksquare}), and liver ({diamondsuit}) plotted according to size of simulated patient (lateral diameter). Graphs show doses for protocol A (A) and protocol B (B).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4B —Mean radiation dose for skin (+), spleen ({blacktriangleup}), stomach ({blacksquare}), and liver ({diamondsuit}) plotted according to size of simulated patient (lateral diameter). Graphs show doses for protocol A (A) and protocol B (B).

 

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



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.