Mobile chest imaging of neonates in incubators: Optimising DR and CR acquisitions
Introduction
To ensure radiographic practice follows the principles of radiation dose protection, it is necessary to perform dose optimisation studies to find and ensure lowest radiation dose whilst maintaining images of diagnostic quality.1 The need for optimisation is even more essential when imaging neonates due to their growth and quickly dividing cells, placing them at greater risk of cellular mutations and developing cancers in later life.2 Neonatal radiography is a vital resource in diagnosing and treating the frequent and often life-threatening conditions affecting neonates, with many conditions requiring multiple chest X-rays to diagnose and monitor their progress.3 Previous studies4, 5, 6, 7 on neonatal optimisation have focused preliminary on acquisition parameters, incubator design, and/or attenuation whilst using one imaging system. Recent evidence8 also found significant variation between existing working practice when imaging neonates highlighting the need to standardise and optimise this area of imaging. An area of variation identified within this study8 was the different imaging systems (Computed Radiography (CR) and Direct Digital Radiography (DDR)) used and available at each hospital.
Since the introduction of digital systems into clinical practice, there has been a need to review dose optimisation to ensure adherence with the ALARP principle.1 It has been noted that exposure factors have not evolved and adapted much for digital systems and remain similar to those used with film-screen radiography.9 Both CR and DDR systems promised radiation dose reduction with superior image quality owing to their high detective quantum efficiency (DQE) and post-processing capabilities.10 There are many studies comparing CR and DDR in adult patients for various imaging examinations,11, 12, 13, 14, 15 however only one study was found relating CR and DDR to neonatal imaging.16 This study was a retrospective analysis only comparing image quality between CR and DDR. This study concluded that image quality for DDR was superior to CR; however, there was wide inter-rater variability and no radiation dose measures were provided. In addition, the images used in the comparisons were based on different size and weight neonates, and the location of the image receptor (directly behind neonate or in incubator tray) was not specified.16 An interesting finding within this study was that technical difficulties were encountered with DDR, this was also seen in previous studies8,17 whereby the limitations of DDR were noted especially in terms of the digital image receptor being too large to fit within the incubator tray.
The aim of this study was to explore the differences in radiation dose and image quality for neonatal incubator imaging acquired with both CR and DDR portable imaging systems.
Section snippets
Method
This study was conducted using an experimental phantom approach with a neonatal anthropomorphic phantom imaged under controlled conditions.
Results
Of the 36 acquired images from the study, the images with the highest CNR were acquired using the DDR system with the image receptor directly behind the phantom (Fig. 3 and Table 1). Conversely, the images with lowest CNR were those acquired using the CR system with the image receptor placed within the incubator tray (Fig. 3).
When comparing DDR and CR for images acquired with the image receptor directly behind the neonate, the CNR had a mean increase of 50.3% (Table 2). This was also evident
Discussion
This study was the first to explore the use of both CR and DDR for neonatal imaging using an anthropomorphic phantom under controlled conditions. It consolidated many previous findings together with making several new novel ones. This study found that DDR had superior CNR compared to CR for all acquired images under various conditions. On average, CNR of the images acquired with DDR were double that of CR. This was not surprising as many studies12,15,16,30 have found DDR to be superior to CR
Conclusion
This study was the first study to compare DDR and CR imaging systems for neonatal imaging using anthropomorphic phantoms under controlled conditions. This study found that DDR produced images of higher image quality than CR, with CNR for DDR, on average, double that of CR. In addition, incubator tray reduced CNR for both CR and DDR compared to when using a direct exposure. However, interestingly, the incubator tray exposures using DDR had an increase in CNR compared with a CR direct exposure.
Conflict of interest statement
None.
Acknowledgment
Thank you to School of Healthcare Science at Bangor University for facilitating and supporting this study.
References (35)
- et al.
Optimising image quality and radiation dose for neonatal incubator imaging
Radiography
(2020) - et al.
Removal of comfort pads underneath babies: a method of reducing radiation exposure to neonates
Acad Radiol
(2013) - et al.
Dose optimization in pelvic radiography by air gap method on CR and DR systems; a phantom study
Radiography
(2015) - et al.
Computed radiography versus mobile direct radiography for bedside chest radiographs: impact of dose on image quality and reader agreement
Clin Radiol
(2011) - et al.
10kVp rule e an anthropomorphic pelvis phantom imaging study using CR system: impact on image quality and effective dose using AEC and manual mode
Radiography
(2014) - et al.
Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: a comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems
Clin Imag
(2012) - et al.
An overview of measuring and modelling dose and risk from ionising radiation for medical exposures
Radiography
(2014) - et al.
A simple phantom study of the effects of dose
Radiography
(2010) Standards of proficiency - radiographers
(2013)Radiation safety in the neonatal intensive care
Paediatrics and Neonatology
(2010)