The British journal of radiology · 2026
Evaluation of size-specific dose estimates in CT kidneys, ureters, and bladder scans: comparison of central-slice and full-slices methods using water-equivalent and effective diameters.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alenazi Khaled, Abuhaimed Abdullah, Alanazi Ali, Alshehri Sultan, Abanomy Ahmad, Alahmad Haitham
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in adult patients undergoing kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT KUB) scans using 2 approaches: water-equivalent diameter (Dw) and effective diameter (Deff). The study also aimed to assess the accuracy of using a single central image slice for SSDE estimation.
METHODOLOGY: Ethical approval was obtained to collect patient data from a local hospital. CT images from 203 adult patients were retrieved and processed using IndoseCT software to calculate patient size metrics and corresponding SSDE values.
RESULTS: SSDE values calculated using the Dw,mean and Deff,mean were comparable: 10.3 ± 2.9 mGy and 10.2 ± 2.9 mGy, respectively. When using a single central slice, the mean percentage differences were -1.8 ± 3.9% for Dw and -1.1 ± 4.6% for Deff, with all values falling within ±11%. A strong correlation was observed between SSDE values derived from single-slice and full-slice measurements (R2 > 0.97), showing slightly better agreement for Dw.
CONCLUSION: While Dw offers a more accurate estimation of patient size, the minimal differences observed suggest that Deff is a suitable alternative when Dw specific tools are unavailable. Additionally, using a single central slice is a practical and efficient method to estimate SSDE, significantly reducing computational demands.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides clinical validation that SSDE can be reliably estimated using a single-slice method in CT KUB examinations, offering a substantial reduction in processing time. It also demonstrates that Deff is a viable substitute for Dw when access to advanced imaging analysis tools is limited.
METHODOLOGY: Ethical approval was obtained to collect patient data from a local hospital. CT images from 203 adult patients were retrieved and processed using IndoseCT software to calculate patient size metrics and corresponding SSDE values.
RESULTS: SSDE values calculated using the Dw,mean and Deff,mean were comparable: 10.3 ± 2.9 mGy and 10.2 ± 2.9 mGy, respectively. When using a single central slice, the mean percentage differences were -1.8 ± 3.9% for Dw and -1.1 ± 4.6% for Deff, with all values falling within ±11%. A strong correlation was observed between SSDE values derived from single-slice and full-slice measurements (R2 > 0.97), showing slightly better agreement for Dw.
CONCLUSION: While Dw offers a more accurate estimation of patient size, the minimal differences observed suggest that Deff is a suitable alternative when Dw specific tools are unavailable. Additionally, using a single central slice is a practical and efficient method to estimate SSDE, significantly reducing computational demands.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides clinical validation that SSDE can be reliably estimated using a single-slice method in CT KUB examinations, offering a substantial reduction in processing time. It also demonstrates that Deff is a viable substitute for Dw when access to advanced imaging analysis tools is limited.