Yes / Objectives: Pelvis radiographs are usually acquired supine despite standing imaging reflecting functional anatomy. We compared supine and erect radiographic examinations for anatomical features, radiation dose and image quality.
Methods: 60 patients underwent pelvis radiography in both supine and erect positions at the same examination appointment. Measures of body mass index and sagittal diameter were obtained. Images were evaluated using visual grading analysis and pelvic tilt was compared. Dose–area product values were recorded and inputted into the CalDose_X software to estimate effective dose (ED). The CalDose_X software allowed comparisons using data from the erect and supine sex-specific phantoms (MAX06 & FAX06).
Results: Patient sagittal diameter was greater on standing with an average 20.6% increase at the iliac crest (median 30.0, interquartile range [26.0 to 34.0] cm), in comparison to the supine position [24.0 (22.3 to 28.0) cm; p < 0.001]. 57 (95%) patients had posterior pelvic tilt on weight-bearing. Erect image quality was significantly decreased with median image quality scores of 78% (69 to 85) compared to 87% for the supine position [81 to 91] (p < 0.001). In the erect position, the ED was 47% higher [0.17 (0.13 to 0.33) mSv vs 0.12 (0.08 to 0.18) mSv (p < 0.001)], influenced by the increased sagittal diameter. 42 (70%) patients preferred the standing examination.
Conclusion: Patient diameter and pelvic tilt were altered on weightbearing. Erect images demonstrated an overall decrease in image quality with a higher radiation dose. Optimal acquisition parameters are required for erect pelvis radiography as the supine technique is not directly transferable. / College of Radiographers Industry Partnership Scheme grant.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BRADFORD/oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/18517 |
| Date | 16 June 2021 |
| Creators | Flintham, K., Alzyoud, K., England, A., Hogg, P., Snaith, Beverly |
| Source Sets | Bradford Scholars |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Article, Published version |
| Rights | © 2021 The Authors. This is an Open Access article distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), CC-BY |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds