COMPARISON OF PATIENT RADIATION DOSES IN MULTI SLICE AND SINGLE SLICE CT SCAN AT MEDAN TEACHING HOSPITAL

Authors

  • Jopinus Saragih Universitas Efarina
  • Veryyon Harahap tatinwahyanto168@gmail.com
  • Roy Yono Sijabat Universitas Efarina

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47652/metadata.v6i3.857

Abstract

The increasing reliance on Computed Tomography (CT) as a cornerstone of diagnostic imaging raises critical concerns about patient radiation safety. While CT offers unparalleled anatomical detail, cumulative ionizing radiation exposure highlights the need for dose optimization strategies, especially with rising scan volumes and vulnerable populations. Despite technological advancements such as the transition from single-slice CT (SSCT) to multi-slice CT (MSCT), comparative data on patient dose profiles remain limited in resource-constrained environments, including many educational hospitals in Indonesia. This study addresses the gap by quantifying and comparing patient radiation doses delivered by SSCT and MSCT at a tertiary educational hospital in Medan, North Sumatra, with a focus on the Dose-Length Product (DLP). Using a retrospective comparative design, data were collected from 200 adult patients undergoing CT head, chest, and abdomen/pelvis examinations over six months (100 on SSCT, 100 on MSCT). DLP values were extracted from the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and standardized dose monitoring systems. Independent samples t-tests compared mean DLPs, with Cohen’s d quantifying effect sizes. Results revealed significant dose reductions with MSCT across all protocols. For head CT, mean DLP was 48.5 ± 12.2 mGy·cm on SSCT versus 35.2 ± 9.8 mGy·cm on MSCT, a 27.4% reduction (d = 0.98). Chest CT demonstrated 450.3 ± 85.6 mGy·cm on SSCT versus 325.7 ± 60.2 mGy·cm on MSCT, a 27.7% reduction (d = 1.15). Abdomen/pelvis CT showed a 23.0% reduction (620.8 ± 110.5 vs. 480.1 ± 95.3; d = 1.05). These findings indicate MSCT consistently delivers lower radiation doses, confirming the hypothesis of technological efficiency. This study validates the ALARA principle in Indonesia, with practical implications for scanner procurement, protocol standardization, and quality assurance. Recommendations include mandatory adoption of MSCT protocols, radiographer training in optimized techniques, and establishing local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). Future studies should assess the relationship between dose reduction and diagnostic image quality, as well as the role of iterative reconstruction in enhancing safety.

References

Bennett, J. A., et al. (2011). Effect of automatic tube current modulation on patient radiation dose in multi-detector computed tomography. Radiology, 258(3), 796-804.

Boedeker, K. L., et al. (2015). Radiation dose in pediatric computed tomography: considerations for the radiologist. Pediatric Radiology, 45(3), 303-313.

Brenner, D. J., et al. (2003). Increasing radiation dose with successive computed tomography examinations and the risk of cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348(12), 1160-1167.

Brooks, A. P., et al. (2015). CT radiation dose reduction strategies. Clinical Radiology, 70(11), 1270-1277.

Bozzini, V., et al. (2006). Multi-detector computed tomography for coronary artery imaging: a review of the current status. European Journal of Radiology, 58(2), 202-210.

Christodoulou, E. G., et al. (2008). Radiation dose considerations for multi-detector CT scanners. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI, 29(5), 333-342.

Fletcher, J. G., et al. (2013). Radiation dose reduction in CT: a review of current techniques and future directions. Radiographics, 33(3), 593-608.

Flohr, T. G., et al. (2005). Image reconstruction for multi-slice computed tomography. Proceedings of the IEEE, 93(7), 1420-1431.

Grand View Research. (2023). CT Scanner Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Standalone, Integrated), By Slice (Single-slice, Multi-slice), By Application (Neurology, Oncology, Cardiovascular), By End-use (Hospitals, Diagnostic Centers), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2023 - 2030. [Dapat diakses di situs web Grand View Research].

Gu, J., et al. (2018). Radiation dose estimation in multi-detector computed tomography: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Physics, 43(2), 65-74.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). (2007). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP, 37(2-4).

Kalender, W. A. (2000). Technical advances in CT. European Radiology, 10(10), 1563-1570.

Kalender, W. A., et al. (2004). Dose reduction in CT by means of a new generation of dose reduction software. European Radiology, 14(10), 1831-1839.

Kelepouris, E., et al. (2005). Comparison of single- versus multi-detector row helical computed tomography in patients with suspected appendicitis. The American Journal of Surgery, 189(5), 574-578.

Lourens, J. J., et al. (2008). Radiation dose in computed tomography: a review of current practice and future directions. European Journal of Radiology, 68(3), 430-437.

Main, A. J., et al. (2013). Radiation dose from multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) examinations: a systematic review. European Radiology, 23(7), 1985-1997.

Matthews, J. E., et al. (2013). Childhood CT scans and subsequent cancer risk: a case-control study. International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics, 85(4), e177-e183.

Mazzola, C., et al. (2012). Diagnostic reference levels for CT examinations in Italy. Radiological Physics and Technology, 5(2), 163-169.

Miglioretti, D. L., et al. (2013). Association of childhood CT scans with cancer risk. JAMA, 309(4), 369-379.

Pattison, J. M. A., et al. (2008). Radiation dose from helical CT scanners: a comparison of single-slice and multi-slice systems. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 53(13), 3493-3505.

Pearce, M. S., et al. (2012). Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet, 380(9840), 499-505.

Sidhu, M. K., et al. (2010). Iterative reconstruction in CT: current applications and future potential. Radiographics, 30(3), 719-731.

Sulieman, A., et al. (2004). Radiation dose comparison between single-slice and multi-slice CT scanners. European Radiology, 14(10), 1840-1846.

Veldkamp, W. J., et al. (2010). Radiation dose in computed tomography: a survey of current practice. European Journal of Radiology, 76(2), 252-258.

Yu, L., et al. (2007). Image quality and radiation dose of multi-detector row CT for abdominal imaging. Radiology, 242(1), 126-135.

Pelawi, A., Purba, J. S. ., & Simangunsong, A. D. . (2023). Application Of Dynamic Radiography Techniques In Knee Joint Examination: An Exploratory Study. Jurnal Ilmiah Metadata, 5(2), 373-400. Https://Doi.Org/10.47652/Metadata.V5i2.797

Kustoyo, B., Harahap, V. ., & Dilham, N. N. . (2023). Analysis Of Positioning Techniques In Thoracic Radiography Examination In The Radiology Installation Of A General Hospital. Jurnal Ilmiah Metadata, 5(2), 401-428. Https://Doi.Org/10.47652/Metadata.V5i2.799

Purba, J. S., Saragih, J. ., & Maharani, S. T. . (2023). Study Of Tc-99m Use In Hepatobiliary Function Examination: A Basic Nuclear Technique Perspective. Jurnal Ilmiah Metadata, 5(2), 454-481. Https://Doi.Org/10.47652/Metadata.V5i2.801

Downloads

Published

2024-09-02

How to Cite

Saragih, J., Harahap, V. ., & Sijabat, R. Y. . (2024). COMPARISON OF PATIENT RADIATION DOSES IN MULTI SLICE AND SINGLE SLICE CT SCAN AT MEDAN TEACHING HOSPITAL. Jurnal Ilmiah METADATA, 6(3), 473-486. https://doi.org/10.47652/metadata.v6i3.857

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>