BackgroundThe radiation dose for patients can be reduced with many methods and one way is to use abdominal compression. In this study, the radiation dose and image quality for a new patient-controlled compression device were compared with conventional compression and compression in the prone position.PurposeTo compare radiation dose and image quality of patient-controlled compression compared with conventional and prone compression in general radiography.Material and MethodsAn experimental design with quantitative approach. After obtaining the approval of the ethics committee, a consecutive sample of 48 patients was examined with the standard clinical urography protocol. The radiation doses were measured as dose-area product and analyzed with a paired t-test. The image quality was evaluated by visual grading analysis. Four radiologists evaluated each image individually by scoring nine criteria modified from the European quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images.ResultsThere was no significant difference in radiation dose or image quality between conventional and patient-controlled compression. Prone position resulted in both higher dose and inferior image quality.ConclusionPatient-controlled compression gave similar dose levels as conventional compression and lower than prone compression. Image quality was similar with both patient-controlled and conventional compression and was judged to be better than in the prone position.
Aim To describe patients' and radiographers' experiences of abdominal compression using conventional and patient‐controlled compression methods. Design Qualitative descriptive design. Methods Forty‐five patients who had used both a conventional and a patient‐controlled compression device answered questionnaires. Five radiographers were interviewed. The data‐collection took place between September 2015 and February 2017. Data were analysed by qualitative content analysis. Results Patient‐controlled compression was preferred by slightly more patients because of fear of pain due to excessively hard pressure, maintaining control over the pressure and shorter duration. It was more comfortable, and patients felt they could participate in the examinations. Conventional compression was preferred by some because of more stable pressure and uncertainty of own capacity to provide the optimal compression. Discomfort was more often mentioned concerning the conventional compression method. The radiographers experienced the patient‐controlled method as less time‐consuming and more comfortable, but uncertainty about correct compression technique and its effect on radiation dose and image quality was reported.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.