Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (한국방사선학회논문지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (한국방사선학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation on Usefulness of BMI Application to Urological CT Examination

비뇨기계 CT 검사 시 체질량 지수 적용의 유용성 평가

  • Kim, Hyeon-jin (Department of Radiological science, Kaya University) ;
  • Im, In-chul (Department of Radiological science, Dongeui University)
  • 김현진 (가야대학교 방사선학과) ;
  • 임인철 (동의대학교 방사선학과)
  • Received : 2018.02.13
  • Accepted : 2018.04.30
  • Published : 2018.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of BMI application to Urography CT by applying different tube voltages in accordance with body mass index. Group A (n = 38) with body mass index of lower than 25 was examined with tube voltage of 100 kVp while Group B (n = 45) with a BMI of 25 and higher was examined with tube voltage of 120 kVp. C group (n = 37) with body mass index (BMI) of lower than 25 was examined with tube voltage of 120kVp. Although the difference in average dose between group A (100 kVp) and group C (120 kVp) with low body mass index (BMI) of lower than 25 was $214.8mGy{\cdot}cm$, there was no significant difference in qualitative evaluation and, compared with patient group with body mass index of 25 and higher, results obtained were rather good. Therefore, this study verified that the tube voltage of lower than 100 kVp does not have adverse effect on the quality of image for patients with body mass index (BMI) of lower than 25.

본 연구에서는 체질량 지수에 따라 각기 다른 관전압을 적용하여 비뇨기계 CT 검사 시 체질량 지수 적용의 유용성을 평가하고자 하였다. A그룹(n=38)은 체질량 지수가 25 이하이며 관전압 100 kVp로 검사하였고 B그룹(n=45)은 체질량 지수가 25 이상이며 관전압 120kVp로 검사하였다. C그룹(n=37)은 체질량 지수가 25 이하이며 관전압 120kVp로 검사하였다. 체질량 지수가 25 이하로 낮은 A그룹(100 kVp)과 C그룹(120kVp)의 두 그룹간 평균 선량의 차이는 $214.8mGy{\cdot}cm$의 차이를 나타내었으나 정성적 평가에서는 큰 차이가 없음을 확인할 수 있었으며 체질량 지수가 25이상인 환자군과 비교하여서는 오히려 좋은 결과를 확인할 수 있었다. 따라서 체질량 지수가 25 이하로 낮은 환자는 관전압을 100 kVp 로 낮추어 촬영하여도 영상의 질에는 부정적인 영향을 주지 않음을 알 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Brown J, "Diagnostic and treatment patterns for renal colic in US emergency departments", International Urology and Nephrology, Vol. 38, pp. 87-92, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-005-3622-6
  2. Bethesda, Maryland,, "National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Prevention and Treatment of Kidney Stones", Journal of Urology, pp. 28-30, 1988.
  3. S. Yilmaz, T. Sindel, G. Arslan, C. Ozkaynak, K. Karaali, A. Kabaalioglu, and E. Luleci, "Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi," European radiology, Vol. 8, Issue. 2, pp. 212-217, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050364
  4. B. S. Kim, S. N. Kung, H. C. Kim, W. C. Hwang, I. S. Lee, I. K. Hwang, H. C. Kim, S. H. Bae, S. K. Lee, and S. H. Lee, “Usefulness of Unenhanced Helical CT in Patients with Suspected Ureteral Colic,” Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 61-67, 2002. https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.2002.47.1.61
  5. B. S John, U. Patel, and K. Anson, “What radiation exposure can a patient expect during a single stone episode?,” Journal of endourology, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 419-422, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0268
  6. D. J. Brenner and E. J. Hall, “Computed tomography an 14 increasing source of radiation exposure,” The New England ournal of medicine, Vol. 357, No. 22, pp. 2277-2284, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072149
  7. Szucs-Farkas Z, Kurmann L, Strautz T, Patak MA, Vock P, Schindera ST, "Patient exposure and image quality of low-dose pulmonary computed tomography angiography: comparison of 100-and 80-kVp protocols", Invest Radiol, Vol. 43, pp. 71-876, 2008.
  8. V. P. Sukumar, J. Collingwood, T. Crawley, D. Schofield, J. Henson, K. Lakin, D. Connolly, and J. Giles, “Low dose computed tomography in suspected acute renal colic,” Clin. Radiol, Vol. 56, No. 11, pp. 873-876, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2001.0842
  9. P. Rogalla, C. Klüner, and M. Taupitz, “Ultra-low dose CT to search for stones in kidneys andcollecting system [in German],” AktuelleUrol, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 307–309, 2004.
  10. Jung B, Mahnken AH, Stargardt A, Simon J, Flohr TG, Schaller S, et al. "Individually weight-adapted examination protocol in retrospectively ECG-gated MSCT of the heart" European Radiology, Vol. 13, pp. 2560-2566, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2111-5
  11. Irie T, Inoue H, "Individual modulation of the tube current-seconds to achieve similar levels of image noise in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT", American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 184, pp. 1514-1518, 2005. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841514