Published ahead of print on January 25, 2008
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A0891
Balancing Radiation Dose and Image Quality: Clinical Applications of Neck Volume CT
M.T. Russella,
J.R. Finka,
F. Rebelesa,
K. Kanala,
M. Ramosa and
Y. Anzaia
a From the Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash

View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 1. Pooled scores from 2 blinded readers regarding image quality, noise, and artifacts. There is minimal decrease in image quality, with slight increase in noise in ATCM techniques compared with the fixed mA technique. The magnitude of the difference is small (0.22) on a 5-point scale and does not seem to be clinically significant.
| |

View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 2. CT images through the posterior fossa with use of the fixed-tube current technique (A), ATCM with noise index of 11.4 (B), and ATCM with noise index of 20.2 (C). There is no perceivable difference in overall image quality among the 3 different techniques. All images are of diagnostic quality.
| |

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 3. CT images through thoracic inlet with use of fixed-tube current technique (A), ATCM with noise index of 11.4 (B), and ATCM with noise index of 20.2 (C). There is no perceivable difference in image quality and noise level. No difference in the degree of streak artifact is noted.
| |

View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 4. CT images through the neck with use of the fixed-tube current technique (A), ATCM with noise index of 11.4 (B), and ATCM with noise index of 20.2 (C). There is no perceivable difference in overall image quality. All images are of diagnostic quality.
| |