New patient-controlled abdominal compression method in radiography: radiation dose and image quality

Abstract

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.

Patients' and radiographers' experiences of dose reducing abdominal compression in radiographic examinations—A qualitative study

“…Both the patients and the radiographers believed that the conventional compression method was safer and resulted in a decreased radiation dose and increased image quality compared with the patient‐controlled compression. Swedish legislation prescribes that the radiation dose should be kept to an absolute minimum (Radiation Protection Act, ), and a previous study concluded that the two compression methods described here are similar with regard to radiation dose and image quality (Piippo‐Huotari et al, ). Balleyguier's study showed that compression was better with patient‐assisted compression, and image quality was equivalent compared with technologist‐assisted compression (Balleyguier et al, ).…”

“…It was tested in a previous study where we evaluated patient‐controlled compression compared with conventional compression. The study did not find any difference in radiation dose or image quality between the two methods (Piippo‐Huotari et al, ). It is, however, important to know the patients' and the radiographers' experiences of compression in general and of the new method specifically, to develop methods further and make compression devices as easy to use as possible.…”

“…The exclusion criteria were as follows: emergency patients, patients who could not participate actively, inability to understand the instructions or answer questions, contraindication for compression or pregnancy. Of the 50 patients who participated in the compression study (Piippo‐Huotari et al, ), 45 agreed to answer a questionnaire about compression in general, including specific questions about the conventional method, and the patient‐controlled compression. A total of 24 women and 21 men participated; their age was distributed as follows: age 18–33: N = 5, age 34–49: N = 10, age 50–65: N = 15, age 66–80: N = 15.…”

“…The other group of participants in this study are the radiographers who performed at least two examinations in the first study ( Piippo‐Huotari et al, ). The principal supervisor, after the completion of the first study, sent an e‐mail to all these radiographers with the invitation to participate in an interview study.…”

“…Prone compression is most frequently used, because it is simple. However, previous research has identified that it is not as effective as compression in the supine position (Piippo‐Huotari, Norrman, Anderzén‐Carlsson & Geijer, ; Olsson et al, ) and not all examinations can be done with the patient in the prone position. For thin patients, it has been shown that there is no compression at all in the prone position (Olsson et al, ).…”