title: A comparison between low-dose and standard-dose non-contrasted multidetector CT scanning of the paranasal sinuses.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the image quality of the low-dose to the standard-dose protocol of MDCT scanning of the paranasal sinuses, based on subjective assessment and determine the radiation doses to the eyes and thyroid gland and dose reduction between these two protocols.
  
  
  METHODS
  31 adult patients were scanned. Prior to scanning, thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were placed at 4 sites: outer canthus of right eye, outer canthus of left eye, inner canthus and anterior neck (thyroid gland). Every patient was scanned twice using the standard-dose protocol (100mAs) followed by the low-dose protocol (40mAs). The images were reviewed by 3 radiologists. Wilcoxon test was used as the test of significance for the image quality assessments. The paired sample t-test was used as the test of significance for the analysis of the radiation doses measured by the TLDs.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 30 patients selected for analysis, this study showed no significant difference in the scores for the diagnostic image quality and the anatomical structures assessments between the two protocols. The average calculated mean entrance surface doses and standard deviation for the standard-dose and low-dose protocols were 12.40±1.39 mGy and 5.53±0.82 mGy respectively to the lens and 1.03±0.55 mGy and 0.63±0.53 mGy respectively to the thyroid gland.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The reduction of mAs from 100 to 40 resulted in a significant reduction of the radiation doses to the lens and thyroid gland by 55.4% and 38.8% respectively without causing any significant effect to the diagnostic image quality and assessment of the anatomical structures.
authors: Department of Biomedical Imaging, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
authors: Sy
authors: S
authors: Lam
authors: Si
authors: S
authors: Bux
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Kumar
authors: Kh
authors: Kh
authors: Ng
authors: Af
authors: A
authors: Hussain
references: Radiology. 1993 Aug;188(2):303-14
references: 8327669
references: Radiology. 1991 Dec;181(3):689-91
references: 1947083
references: Br J Radiol. 2001 Feb;74(878):157-61
references: 11718388
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Oct;181(4):939-44
references: 14500205
references: Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1-3):1-201
references: 2053748
references: Br J Radiol. 2003 Jun;76(906):418-20
references: 12814929
references: Eur J Radiol. 2005 Oct;56(1):31-7
references: 16168261
references: Health Phys. 1999 Jul;77(1):33-6
references: 10376539
references: Radiol Clin North Am. 1993 Jan;31(1):21-32
references: 8419976
references: Radiology. 2007 Jun;243(3):847-52
references: 17517938
references: Neuroradiology. 1991;33(5):403-6
references: 1749469
references: N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
references: 18046031
references: Pediatr Clin North Am. 1989 Dec;36(6):1411-21
references: 2685721
references: Med J Malaysia. 1999 Jun;54(2):185-91
references: 10972028
references: Eur Radiol. 2001;11(4):711-3
references: 11354771
references: Br J Radiol. 1997 Oct;70(838):1071-4
references: 9404216