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
Diserahkan: 24 April 2013/Diterima:
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
RUJUKAN
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.
*Pengarang
untuk surat-menyurat; email: akmal.sabarudin@fsk.ukm.my
|