Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) in the perioperative workup of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Computer Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study aims were to estimate the radiation dose in patients examined with low dose spine CT and to compare it with that received by patients undergoing standard CT for trauma of the same region, as well as to evaluate the impact of dose reduction on image quality. Radiation doses in 113 consecutive low dose spine CTs were compared with those in 127 CTs for trauma. The inter- and intraobserver agreement in measurements of pedicular width, and vertebral rotation, measurements of signal-to-noise ratio and assessment of hardware status were the indicators in the evaluation of image quality. The effective dose of the low dose spine CT (0.37 mSv) was 20 times lower than that of a standard CT for trauma (13.09 mSv). This dose reduction conveyed no impact on image quality. This low dose spine CT protocol allows detailed evaluation that is necessary for preoperative planning and postoperative evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leatherman KD, Dickson RA (1988) The management of spinal deformities. Wright, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Perdriolle R, Vidal J (1985) Thoracic idiopathic scoliosis curve evolution and prognosis. Spine 10(9):785–791

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weinstein SL, Ponseti IV (1983) Curve progression in idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(4):447–455

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maiocco B, Deeney VF, Coulon R, Parks PF Jr (1997) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and the presence of spinal cord abnormalities. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Spine 22(21):2537–2541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Benli IT, Un A, Karaaslan S, Cinemre O, Gurses L, Hekimoglu B (2002) Neural axis abnormalities detected by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in patients with type III idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 36(4):354–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Heithoff KB, Kirkham JA (1997) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the adolescent patient with idiopathic scoliosis before spinal instrumentation and fusion. A prospective, double-blinded study of 140 patients. Spine 22(8):855–858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barnes PD, Brody JD, Jaramillo D, Akbar JU, Emans JB (1993) Atypical idiopathic scoliosis: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 186:247–253

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abul-Kasim K, Gunnarsson M, Maly P, Ohlin A, Sundgren PC (2008) Radiation dose optimization in CT planning of corrective scoliosis surgery. A phantom study. Neuroradiol J 21:374–382

    Google Scholar 

  9. SIEMENS. SOMATOM Sensation 64, Application Guide (2004) Siemens AG medical solution, computed tomography, pp 29–32

  10. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, Leonardi M, van Persijn van Meerten E, Rodríguez R, Schneider K, Calzado A, Geleijns J, Jessen KA, Panzer W, Shrimpton PC, Tosi G (2004) European guidelines for multislice computed tomography. Funded by the European Commission. Contract number FIGM-CT2000–20078-CT-TIP; March 2004

  11. The Working Group on 3-D Classification (Chair Larry Lenke) and the Terminology Committee (March 2000). Scoliosis Research Society Terminology Committee and Working Group on Spinal Classification, Revised Glossary of Terms. Available via: http://www.srs.org/professionals/glossary/glossary.php. Accessed 17 April 2008

  12. Aaro S, Dahlborn M, Svensson L (1978) Estimation of vertebral rotation in structural scoliosis by computer tomography. Act Radiol Diagn 19(6):990–992

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33(2):363–374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37(5):360–363

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Garson GD (2008) Reliability analysis. Available via: http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/reliab.htm. Accessed 17 April 2008

  17. Ho E, Upadhyay SS, Chan FL, Hsu LC, Leong JC (1993) New methods of measuring vertebral rotation from computed tomographic scans. Spine 18(9):1173–1177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Krismer M, Sterzinger W, Haid C (1996) Axial rotation measurement of scoliotic vertebrae by means of CT scans. Spine 21(5):576–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Göçen S, Havitçioğlu H, Alici E (1999) A new method to measure vertebral rotation from CT scan. Eur Spine J 8(4):261–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Krismer M, Chen AM, Steinlechner M, Haid C, Lener N, Wimmer C (1999) Measurement of vertebral rotation: a comparison of two methods based on CT scan. J Spinal Disord 12(2):126–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Göçen S, Aksu MG, Baktiroğlu L, Özcan Ö (1998) Evaluation of computed tomographic methods to measure vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an intraobserver and interobserver analysis. J Spinal Disord 11(3):210–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vande Berg B, Malghem J, Maldague B, Lecouvet F (2006) Multi-detector CT imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient with metal hardware. Eur J Radiol 60(3):470–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wintermark M, Mouhsine E, Theumann N, Mordasini P, van Melle G, Leyvraz PF, Schnyder P (2003) Thoracolumbar spine fractures in patients who have sustained severe trauma: depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 227(3):681–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nishizawa K, Matsumoto M, Iwai K, Tonari A, Yoshida T, Takayama M (2002) Dose evaluation and effective dose estimation from multi detector CT. Igaku Butsuri 22(3):152–158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsapaki V, Aldrich JE, Sharma R, Staniszewska MA, Krisanachinda A, Rehani M, Hufton A, Triantopoulou C, Maniatis PN, Papailiou J, Prokop M (2006) Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT-IAEA-coordinated research project. Radiology 240(3):828–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, Ghysen D, Van Dijck X, Mussen E, Venstermans C, Termote JL (2005) Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 237:213–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357(22):2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Royal College of Radiologists (1998) Making the best use of department of clinical radiology: Guidelines for doctors, 4th edn. Royal College of Radiologists, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Åkerblom G, Falk R, Lindgren J, Mjönes L, Östergren I, Söderman A-L et al (2005) Natural radioactivity in Sweden, exposure to internal radiation. Radiological protection in transition, Proceedings of the XIV Regular Meeting of the Nordic Society for Radiation Protection. NSFS. Rättvik, Sweden, 27–31 August 2005. pp 211–214. Given as SSI-report SSI 2005:15

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Section of Neuroradiology, University of Lund, Malmö University Hospital, 205 02, Malmö, Sweden

    Kasim Abul-Kasim, Angelica Overgaard & Pavel Maly

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Lund, Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

    Acke Ohlin

  3. Department of Radiation Physics, University of Lund, Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

    Mikael Gunnarsson

  4. Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology, University of Michigan Health Systems, Ann Arbor, USA

    Pia C. Sundgren

Authors
  1. Kasim Abul-Kasim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angelica Overgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pavel Maly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Acke Ohlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mikael Gunnarsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pia C. Sundgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kasim Abul-Kasim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abul-Kasim, K., Overgaard, A., Maly, P. et al. Low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) in the perioperative workup of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Radiol 19, 610–618 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1178-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1178-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation