Single-pass split-bolus CT protocol in polytrauma: reproducibility and diagnostic efficacy

Split-bolus single-phase versus single-bolus split-phase CT acquisition protocols for staging in patients with testicular cancer: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Computed tomography (CT) imaging has become indispensable in the management of medical oncology patients. Risks associated with high cumulative effective dose (CED) are relevant in testicular cancer patients. Split-bolus protocols, whereby the contrast medium injection is divided into two, followed by combining the required phase images in a single scan acquisition has been shown to provide images of comparable image quality and less radiation dose compared to single-bolus split-phase CT for various indications. We retrospectively evaluated the performance of split-bolus and single-bolus protocols in patients having follow-up CT imaging for testicular cancer surveillance.

METHODS

45 patients with testicular cancer undergoing surveillance CT imaging of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis who underwent split-bolus and single-bolus protocols were included. Quantitative image quality analysis was conducted by placing region of interests in pre-defined anatomical sub-structures within the abdominal cavity. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and radiation dose in the form of dose length product (DLP) and effective dose (ED) were recorded.

RESULTS

The DLP and ED for the single-bolus, split-phase acquisition was 506 ± 89 mGy cm and 7.59 ± 1.3 mSv, respectively. For the split-bolus, single-phase acquisition, 397 ± 94 mGy∗cm and 5.95 ± 1.4 mSv, respectively (p < 0.000). This represented a 21.5 % reduction in radiation dose exposure. The SNR for liver, muscle and fat for the single-bolus were 7.4, 4.7 and 8, respectively, compared to 5.5, 3.8 and 7.4 in the split-bolus protocol (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In a testicular cancer patient cohort undergoing surveillance CT imaging, utilization of a split-bolus single-phase acquisition CT protocol enabled a significant reduction in radiation dose whilst maintaining subjective diagnostic acceptability.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Use of split-bolus, single-phase acquisition has the potential to reduce CED in surveillance of testicular cancer patients.

Implementation of a new Single-Pass Whole-Body Computed Tomography Protocol: Is it safe, effective and efficient in patients with severe trauma?

Purpose:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a new single-pass whole-body computed tomography Protocol in the management of patients with severe trauma.

Methods:

This was a descriptive evaluation of polytrauma patients who underwent whole-body computed tomography. Patients were divided into three groups: 1. Blunt trauma hemodynamically stable 2. Blunt trauma hemodynamically unstable and 3. Penetrating trauma. Demographics, whole-body computed tomography parameters and outcome variables were evaluated.

Results:

Were included 263 patients. Median injury severity score was 22 (IQR: 16-22). Time between arrival to the emergency department and completing the whole-body computed tomography was under 30 minutes in most patients [Group 1: 28 minutes (IQR: 14-55), Group 2: 29 minutes (IQR: 16-57), and Group 3: 31 minutes (IQR: 13-50; p= 0.96)]. 172 patients (65.4%) underwent non-operative management. The calculated and the real survival rates did not vary among the groups either [Group 1: TRISS 86.4% vs. real survival rate 85% (p= 0.69); Group 2: TRISS 69% vs. real survival rate 74% (p= 0.25); Group 3: TRISS 93% vs. real survival rate 87% (p= 0.07)].

Conclusion:

This new single-pass whole-body computed tomography protocol was safe, effective and efficient to decide whether the patient with severe trauma requires a surgical intervention independently of the mechanism of injury or the hemodynamic stability of the patient. Its use could also potentially reduce the rate of unnecessary surgical interventions of patients with severe trauma including those with penetrating trauma.