We have located links that may give you full text access.
The efficacy of tin-filtration for computed tomography in diagnosing urolithiasis.
Clinical Imaging 2019 Februrary 23
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiation dose and image quality of computed tomography urograms (CTU) using tin-filtration compared to conventional CTU (without tin-filtration) examinations in patients with suspected urolithiasis.
METHODS: Group 1 consisted of 100 patients who were examined using the tin-filtered CTU protocols (Sn100kVp or Sn150kVp); Group 2 consisted of 100 patients who were examined using the same protocols but without tin-filtration (GE-NI41 or GE-NI43). The scanning protocol was based on the patients' body weight (<80 kg and ≥80 kg). The effective doses of all scans were compared between the two groups. Subjective image quality was evaluated by two blinded radiologists. The objective image quality was assessed for noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure-of-merit (FOM) using the CTU scans acquired from both the tin-filtered and non-tin-filtered protocols.
RESULTS: Tin-filtration resulted in the reduction of effective radiation dose ranging between 72% to 88% for the ≥80 kg and <80 kg patient groups respectively. For both groups, tin-filtration resulted in no significant differences in SNR and a significant increase in FOM. For the <80 kg group, tin-filtration resulted in significantly noisier images but with no significant difference in CNR. For the ≥80 kg group, tin-filtration resulted in significantly higher CNR. There was no significant difference in subjective image quality when assessed by the radiologists in terms of diagnostic confidence for urolithiasis.
CONCLUSION: Tin-filtration significantly reduces patient dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality of CTUs for patients with suspected urolithiasis.
METHODS: Group 1 consisted of 100 patients who were examined using the tin-filtered CTU protocols (Sn100kVp or Sn150kVp); Group 2 consisted of 100 patients who were examined using the same protocols but without tin-filtration (GE-NI41 or GE-NI43). The scanning protocol was based on the patients' body weight (<80 kg and ≥80 kg). The effective doses of all scans were compared between the two groups. Subjective image quality was evaluated by two blinded radiologists. The objective image quality was assessed for noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure-of-merit (FOM) using the CTU scans acquired from both the tin-filtered and non-tin-filtered protocols.
RESULTS: Tin-filtration resulted in the reduction of effective radiation dose ranging between 72% to 88% for the ≥80 kg and <80 kg patient groups respectively. For both groups, tin-filtration resulted in no significant differences in SNR and a significant increase in FOM. For the <80 kg group, tin-filtration resulted in significantly noisier images but with no significant difference in CNR. For the ≥80 kg group, tin-filtration resulted in significantly higher CNR. There was no significant difference in subjective image quality when assessed by the radiologists in terms of diagnostic confidence for urolithiasis.
CONCLUSION: Tin-filtration significantly reduces patient dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality of CTUs for patients with suspected urolithiasis.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app