 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sains Malaysiana 47(4)(2018): 773-779 http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2018-4704-16
Perbandingan Dos Sinaran antara Prosedur
Urografi Intravena (IVU) dan Tomografi Berkomputer Helikal Tanpa Kontras (UHCT)
Urografi
(Radiation
Dose Comparison between Intravenous Urography (IVU) and Unenhanced Helical
Computed Tomography (UHCT) Urography)
AKMAL SABARUDIN1*, KANAGA KUMARI CHELLIAH2 & HAMZAINI ABDUL HAMID3
1Program Pengimejan Diagnostik & Radioterapi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
2Pusat Perubatan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan
Yaakob Latiff, Bandar Tun Razak,
56000 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
Received: 24 April 2013/Accepted: 9 November 2017
ABSTRAK Urografi intravena (IVU) dan tomografi berkomputer helikal tanpa kontras (UHCT) urografi adalah dua prosedur utama yang akan dijalankan semasa kajian radiologi bagi pengesanan urolitiasis (batu karang)
pada sistem genitourinari. Dedahan terhadap sinaran radiasi
merupakan faktor kebimbangan utama dalam kedua-dua prosedur. Oleh itu, satu kajian perbandingan dos sinaran telah dijalankan antara prosedur IVU dan UHCT urografi di samping menentukan faktor dedahan optimum bagi kedua-dua prosedur tersebut. Kajian ini telah dijalankan ke atas fantom antropomorfi
seluruh tubuh mengikut protokol sebenar bagi prosedur UHCT urografi dan
penghasilan radiografi bersiri beserta dengan pemberian media berkontras bagi
prosedur IVU. Sebanyak tiga parameter dedahan voltan tiub digunakan
iaitu 75, 80 dan 85 kVp bagi prosedur IVU dan 100, 120 dan 140 kVp bagi prosedur UHCT urografi. Hasil dos sinaran bagi prosedur IVU yang
diperoleh adalah 1.40, 2.10 dan 2.79 mSv bagi 75, 80
dan 85 kVp. Manakala bagi prosedur UHCT urografi, sebanyak 0.76, 1.32 dan 1.82 mSv dos sinaran direkodkan bagi 100, 120 dan 140 kVp. Hasil kualiti imej optimum adalah menggunakan dedahan sebanyak 85 kVp bagi prosedur IVU dan 120 kVp bagi prosedur UHCT urografi. Kesimpulannya, walaupun
tidak terdapat perbezaan signifikan, dos sinaran yang terhasil daripada
prosedur IVU adalah tekal lebih tinggi daripada prosedur UHCT urografi.
Kata kunci: Dos sinaran; kualiti imej;
tomografi berkomputer helikal tanpa kontras urografi; urografi intravena
ABSTRACT Intravenous
urography (IVU) and unenhanced helical computed tomography (UHCT) urography are
the two main procedures performed in the radiological investigation for
urolithiasis (urinary tract stone). However, exposure to ionizing radiation is the main concern in both procedures. Therefore, a dose comparison study was conducted between IVU and UHCT urography procedures to determine the optimum exposure parameters in this study. An anthropomorphic whole body
phantom was used following the exact procedure of UHCT urography and series of
imaging for IVU with an administration of contrast media. Three different
exposure parameters were used for IVU with 75, 80 and 85 kVp while 100, 120 and 140 kVp for UHCT urography, respectively. As a result, the radiation doses for IVU were 1.40, 2.10 and 2.79 mSv corresponding to 75, 80 and 85 kVp, respectively. On the other hand, the radiation doses for UHCT urography
were 0.76, 1.32 and 1.82 mSv for 100, 120 and 140 kVp, respectively. However
the optimum image was obtained at 85
kVp for IVU and 120 kVp for UHCT urography. In conclusion, the doses obtained from IVU were consistently higher than UHCT urography but not significantly different.
Keywords: Image quality; intravenous urography; radiation dose; unenhanced helical computed tomography urography
REFERENCES
Armpilia, C.I., Fife, a.J. & Croasdale, P.L. 2002. Radiation dose quantities and risk in neonates in a special care baby unit. British Journal of Radiology 75: 590-595. Hall, E.J. 1999. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. Ed ke-5. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Kim, J.K. & Cho, K.S. 2003. CT urography and virtual endoscopy: Promising imaging modalities for urinary tract evaluation. British Journal of Radiology 76: 199-209. Meagher, T., Sukumar, V.P., Collingwood, J., Crawley, T.,
Schofield, D., Henson, J., Lakin, K. & Connolly, J.G. 2001. Low dose computed tomography in suspected accute renal colic. Clinical Radiology Journal 56(11): 873-876.
Moller, T.B. 2000. Normal Findings in Radiology. Ed. Ke-2.Italy: CIC Edizioni Internazionali. Nawfel, R.D., Judy, P.F., Schleipman, A.R. & Silverman, S.G. 2004. Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology 232: 126-132. Pallwein-Prettner, L., Flory, D., Rotter, C.R., Pogner, K., Syre, G., Fellner, C., Frauscher, F., Aigner, F., Krause, F.S. & Fellner, F. 2011. Assessment and characterization of common renal masses with CT and MRI. Insights Imaging 2: 543-556. Parsons, J.K., Lancini, V., Shetye, K., Regan, F., Potter, S.R. & Jarret, T.W. 2003. Urinary stone size: Comparison of abdominal plain radiography and non-contrast CT measurement. Journal of EndoUrology 17: 725-728. Pfister, S.A., Deckart, A., Laschke, S., Dellas, S., Otto, U., Buitrago, C., Roth, J., Wiesner, W. & Gasser, T.C. 2003. Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: Accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial. European Radiology 13(11): 2513-2510. Rossee, C.J., Zagoria, R. & Dixon, R. 2000. Is there a learning curved in diagnostic urolithiasis with noncontrast helical computed tomography? Canada Associates Radiology Journal 51: 177-181. Silverman, S.G., Levendecker, J.R. & Amis, E.S. 2009. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology 250: 309-323. Sperry, K.J. & Knowles, P. 2005. Changes in technique can reduce radiation dose in CT examination. American Journal of Roentgenology 185: 509-515. Yakoumakis, E., Tsalafoutas, I.a., Nikolaou, D., Nazos, I., Koulentianos, E. & Proukakis, C.H. 2001. Differences in effective dose estimation from dose-area product and entrance surface dose measurements in intravenous urography. British Journal of Radiology 74: 727-734.
*Corresponding author; email: akmal.sabarudin@fsk.ukm.my
|
|||
|
