title: Computed tomography scout views vs. conventional radiography in body-packers - delineation of body-packs and radiation dose in a porcine model.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare abdominal computed tomography (CT) scout views with conventional radiography regarding radiation dose and delineation of drug packages in a porcine body-packer model.
  
  
  METHODS
  Nine samples of illicit drugs packed in ovoid plastic containers were consecutively placed in the rectum of a 121.5 kg pig cadaver. Antero-posterior and lateral scout views were obtained at 120 kVp and 80 mA, 150 mA and 200 mA, respectively, using a 64-row MDCT. Scout views were compared with conventional abdominal antero-posterior radiographs (77 kV and 106 ± 13 mAs). Visibility of three body pack characteristics (wrapping, content, shape) was rated independently by two radiologists and summarized to a delineation score ranging from 0 to 9 with a score ≥ 6 representing sufficient delineation. Mean delineation scores were calculated for each conventional radiography and single plane scout view separately and for a combined rating of antero-posterior and lateral scout views.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Even the lowest single plane scout view delineation score (5.3 ± 2.0 for 80 mA lateral; 0.4 mSv; sensitivity=44%) was significantly higher than for conventional radiographs (3.1 ± 2.5, p<0.001; 2.4 ± 0.3 mSv; sensitivity=11%). Combined reading of antero-posterior and lateral scout views 80 mA yielded sufficient delineation (6.2 ± 1.4; 0.8 mSv; sensitivity=56%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  All CT scout views showed significantly better delineation ratings and sensitivity than conventional radiographs. Scout views in two planes at 80 mA provided a sufficient level of delineation and a sensitivity five times higher than conventional radiography at less than one third of the radiation dose. In case of diagnostic insecurity, CT can be performed without additional logistical effort.
authors.affiliation: Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich, Nussbaumstraße 20, 80336 Munich, Germany. edvard.ziegeler@campus.lmu.de
authors.forename: Edvard
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Ziegeler
authors.forename: Jochen M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Grimm
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Wirth
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Uhl
authors.forename: Maximilian F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Reiser
authors.forename: Michael K
authors.initials: MK
authors.lastname: Scherr
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001822:Body Burden; D003415:Crime; D005547:Foreign Bodies / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D006801:Humans; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D015813:Substance Abuse Detection / Q000379:methods*; D013552:Swine; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*; D014962:X-Ray Film