Antero-posterior (AP) pelvis x-ray imaging on a trolley: Impact of trolley design, mattress design and radiographer practice on image quality and radiation dose.

INTRODUCTION Physical and technical differences exist between imaging on an x-ray tabletop and imaging on a trolley. This study evaluates how trolley imaging impacts image quality and radiation dose for an antero-posterior (AP) pelvis projection whilst subsequently exploring means of optimising this imaging examination. METHODS An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom was imaged on a commercially available trolley under various conditions. Variables explored included two mattresses, two image receptor holder positions, three source to image distances (SIDs) and four mAs values. Image quality was evaluated using relative visual grading analysis with the reference image acquired on the x-ray tabletop. Contrast to noise ratio (CNR) was calculated. Effective dose was established using Monte Carlo simulation. Optimisation scores were derived as a figure of merit by dividing effective dose with visual image quality scores. RESULTS Visual image quality reduced significantly (p < 0.05) whilst effective dose increased significantly (p < 0.05) for images acquired on the trolley using identical acquisition parameters to the reference image. The trolley image with the highest optimisation score was acquired using 130 cm SID, 20 mAs, the standard mattress and platform not elevated. A difference of 12.8 mm was found between the image with the lowest and highest magnification factor (18%). CONCLUSION The acquisition parameters used for AP pelvis on the x-ray tabletop are not transferable to trolley imaging and should be modified accordingly to compensate for the differences that exist. Exposure charts should be developed for trolley imaging to ensure optimal image quality at lowest possible dose.

[1]  Andy J. Scally,et al.  Recommended Standards for the Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-Ray Systems , 2005 .

[2]  Kwan-Hoong Ng,et al.  Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: a comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems. , 2012, Clinical imaging.

[3]  A. Ward,et al.  Digital pelvic radiography: increasing distance to reduce dose. , 2011, Radiologic technology.

[4]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[5]  A. Ward,et al.  Options for radiation dose optimisation in pelvic digital radiography: A phantom study , 2012 .

[6]  M Zankl,et al.  The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  Daniel J. Valentino,et al.  Practical evaluation of image quality in computed radiographic (CR) imaging systems , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[8]  Bernard R. Rosner,et al.  Fundamentals of Biostatistics. , 1992 .

[9]  Wang Kei Ma,et al.  Fact or fiction: An analysis of the 10 kVp ‘rule’ in computed radiography , 2013 .

[10]  Gye Hwan Jin,et al.  Measurement of Image Quality in CT Images Reconstructed with Different Kernels , 2011 .

[11]  P. Hogg,et al.  Breast tissue bulge and lesion visibility during stereotactic biopsy – a phantom study , 2014 .

[12]  Mitsuru Ikeda,et al.  Method of measuring contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in nonuniform image area in digital radiography , 2013 .

[13]  D. Dance,et al.  Selection of anti-scatter grids for different imaging tasks: the advantage of low atomic number cover and interspace materials. , 1993, The British journal of radiology.

[14]  K. Porter,et al.  The prehospital management of pelvic fractures , 2007, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[15]  B. Wall,et al.  Radiation Risks from Medical X-ray Examinations as a Function of the Age and Sex of the Patient , 2011 .

[16]  A. England,et al.  Optimum patient orientation for pelvic and hip radiography: A randomised trial , 2014 .

[17]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[18]  A. Ghasemi,et al.  Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians , 2012, International journal of endocrinology and metabolism.

[19]  P. Hogg,et al.  Increasing source to image distance for AP pelvis imaging – Impact on radiation dose and image quality , 2014 .

[20]  Andrew England,et al.  Development and validation of a visual grading scale for assessing image quality of AP pelvis radiographic images. , 2016, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  C. P. Chan,et al.  Dose optimization in pelvic radiography by air gap method on CR and DR systems – A phantom study , 2015 .

[22]  Peter Hogg,et al.  Effects of kilovoltage, milliampere seconds, and focal spot size on image quality. , 2014, Radiologic technology.

[23]  K. Agrawal,et al.  Pressure ulcers: Back to the basics , 2012, Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery.

[24]  CJ Martin,et al.  Biij Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal Optimisation in General Radiography , 2022 .

[25]  R. Visser,et al.  Reducing effective dose to a paediatric phantom by using different combinations of kVp, mAs and additional filtration whilst maintaining image quality , 2015 .

[26]  P. Hogg,et al.  10 kVp rule – An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom imaging study using a CR system: impact on image quality and effective dose using AEC and manual mode , 2014 .

[27]  Kate Alexander,et al.  Reducing error in radiographic interpretation. , 2010, The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne.

[28]  T. Donovan,et al.  Detection or decision errors? Missed lung cancer from the posteroanterior chest radiograph. , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[29]  U. Neitzel,et al.  Optimizing Image Quality and Dose for Digital Radiography of Distal Pediatric Extremities Using the Contrast-to-Noise Ratio , 2012, Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren.