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) All Versions of this Article: 2212000784v1 221/2/395    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted 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 McCollough, C. H. Articles by Hattery, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McCollough, C. H. Articles by Hattery, R. R.

Image Quality and Dose Comparison among Screen-Film, Computed, and CT Scanned Projection Radiography: Applications to CT Urography¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, E2-A, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905. Received April 7, 2000; revision requested June 1; revision received May 2, 2001; accepted May 15. Address correspondence to C.H.M. (e-mail: mccollough.cynthia@mayo.edu).

PURPOSE: To evaluate image quality and dose for abdominal imaging techniques that could be used as part of a computed tomographic (CT) urographic examination: screen-film (S-F) radiography or computed radiography (CR), performed with moving and stationary grids, and CT scanned projection radiography (CT SPR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An image quality phantom underwent imaging with moving and stationary grids with both a clinical S-F combination and CR plate. CT SPR was performed with six CT scanners at various milliampere second and kilovolt peak settings. Entrance skin exposure (ESE); spatial, contrast, and temporal resolutions; geometric accuracy; and artifacts were assessed.

RESULTS: S-F or CR images, with either grid, provided image quality equivalent to that with the clinical standard, S-F with a moving grid. ESE values for both S-F and CR were 435 mR (112.2 µC/kg [1 mR = 0.258 µC/kg]) with a moving grid and 226 mR (58.3 µC/kg) with a stationary grid. All CT SPR images provided inferior spatial resolution compared with S-F or CR images. High-contrast objects generated substantial artifacts on CT SPR images. Compared with S-F, CR and CT SPR provided improved resolution of small low-contrast objects. The contrast between iodine and soft-tissue–mimicking structures on CT SPR images acquired at 80 kVp was twice that at 120 kVp. CT SPR images with acceptable noise levels required a midline ESE value of approximately 300 mR (77.4 µC/kg) at 80 kVp.

CONCLUSION: S-F and CR provided better spatial resolution than did CT SPR. However, CT SPR provided improved low-contrast resolution compared with S-F, at exposures comparable to those used for S-F or CR.   

Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), technology, 80.12115 • Radiography, technology, 80.1215 • Screens and films, 80.1215 • Urography, technology, 80.12115, 80.1215

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. C. Chow, S. W. Kwan, E. W. Olcott, and G. Sommer Split-Bolus MDCT Urography with Synchronous Nephrographic and Excretory Phase Enhancement Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2007; 189(2): 314 - 322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. S. Sudakoff, D. P. Dunn, R. S. Hellman, M. A. Laguna, C. R. Wilson, R. W. Prost, D. C. Eastwood, and H. J. Lim Opacification of the Genitourinary Collecting System During MDCT Urography with Enhanced CT Digital Radiography: Nonsaline Versus Saline Bolus Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 122 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Norrman and J. Persliden A factorial experiment on image quality and radiation dose Radiat Prot Dosimetry, May 17, 2005; 114(1-3): 246 - 252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M Noroozian, R H Cohan, E M Caoili, N C Cowan, and J H Ellis Multislice CT urography: state of the art Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2004; 77(suppl_1): S74 - S86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kawashima, T. J. Vrtiska, A. J. LeRoy, R. P. Hartman, C. H. McCollough, and B. F. King Jr CT Urography RadioGraphics, October 1, 2004; 24(suppl_1): S35 - S54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Nawfel, P. F. Judy, A. R. Schleipman, and S. G. Silverman Patient Radiation Dose at CT Urography and Conventional Urography Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 126 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-K. Kim, S.-Y. Park, H.-j. Kim, C.-S. Kim, H.-J. Ahn, T.-Y. Ahn, and K.-S. Cho Living Donor Kidneys: Usefulness of Multi-Detector Row CT for Comprehensive Evaluation Radiology, December 1, 2003; 229(3): 869 - 876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]