Systematic Radiation Dose Reduction in Cervical Spine CT of Human Cadaveric Specimens: How Low Can We Go?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

While the use of cervical spine CT in trauma settings has increased, the balance between image quality and dose reduction remains a concern. The purpose of our study was to compare the image quality of CT of the cervical spine of cadaveric specimens at different radiation dose levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cervical spine of 4 human cadavers (mean body mass index; 30.5 ± 5.2 kg/m; range, 24-36 kg/m) was examined using different reference tube current-time products (45, 75, 105, 135, 150, 165, 195, 275, 355 mAs) and a tube voltage of 120 kV(peak). Data were reconstructed with filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction. Qualitative image noise and morphologic characteristics of bony structures were quantified on a Likert scale. Quantitative image noise was measured. Statistics included analysis of variance and the Tukey test.

RESULTS

Compared with filtered back-projection, iterative reconstruction provided significantly lower qualitative (mean noise score: iterative reconstruction = 2.10/filtered back-projection = 2.18; = .003) and quantitative (mean SD of Hounsfield units in air: iterative reconstruction = 30.2/filtered back-projection = 51.8; < .001) image noise. Image noise increased as the radiation dose decreased. Qualitative image noise at levels C1-4 was rated as either "no noise" or as "acceptable noise." Any shoulder position was at level C5 and caused more artifacts at lower levels. When we analyzed all spinal levels, scores for morphologic characteristics revealed no significant differences between 105 and 355 mAs ( = .555), but they were worse in scans at 75 mAs ( = .025).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically acceptable image quality of cervical spine CTs for evaluation of bony structures of cadaveric specimens with different body habitus can be achieved with a reference mAs of 105 at 120 kVp with iterative reconstruction. Pull-down of shoulders during acquisition could improve image quality but may not be feasible in trauma patients with unknown injuries.