CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨不同感度数字化胸部X线正位摄影对图像质量和辐射剂量的影响。资料与方法随机选择300例行胸部X线检查的健康体检者，按体重指数分为正常组150例和超重组150例，每组再随机分为低感度组、中感度组和高感度组3个亚组（每亚组各50例），在其他参数不变的情况下每个亚组分别行S200、S400和S800数字化胸部X线正位摄影，并上传至PACS工作站，记录每次曝光的曝光量和辐射剂量面积乘积（DAP）值，由3位医师对图像质量进行评价，比较各组受检者在不同感度下的曝光量、DAP、图像质量评分和噪声情况。结果正常组中低感度组、中感度组和高感度组的曝光量及DAP差异有统计学意义（F=1443.191~1829.895, P<0.05），图像质量比较和噪声比较差异无统计学意义（F=0.686~2.516, P>0.05）。超重组中低感度组、中感度组和高感度组下的曝光量、DAP、图像质量评分及噪声比较差异有统计学意义（F=163.358~290.656, P<0.05）。单因素方差分析两两对比，两组曝光量值低感度组>中感度组>高感度组（F=0.626~3.210，P<0.05），DAP值低感度组>中感度组>高感度（F=0.416~1.416, P<0.05），正常组图像质量比较及噪声比较无差别（F=0.001~0.100, P>0.05），在超重组中低感度组与中感度组无差别（F=0.120~0.145, P>0.05），低感度组与高感度组及中感度组与高感度组有差异（F=1.655~2.360, P<0.05）。结论调节感度可以在不影响图像质量的前提下有效控制辐射剂量。正常体型可以选择高感度摄影，而超重体型可以选择中感度或低感度摄影。
목적탐토불동감도수자화흉부X선정위섭영대도상질량화복사제량적영향。자료여방법수궤선택300례행흉부X선검사적건강체검자，안체중지수분위정상조150례화초중조150례，매조재수궤분위저감도조、중감도조화고감도조3개아조（매아조각50례），재기타삼수불변적정황하매개아조분별행S200、S400화S800수자화흉부X선정위섭영，병상전지PACS공작참，기록매차폭광적폭광량화복사제량면적승적（DAP）치，유3위의사대도상질량진행평개，비교각조수검자재불동감도하적폭광량、DAP、도상질량평분화조성정황。결과정상조중저감도조、중감도조화고감도조적폭광량급DAP차이유통계학의의（F=1443.191~1829.895, P<0.05），도상질량비교화조성비교차이무통계학의의（F=0.686~2.516, P>0.05）。초중조중저감도조、중감도조화고감도조하적폭광량、DAP、도상질량평분급조성비교차이유통계학의의（F=163.358~290.656, P<0.05）。단인소방차분석량량대비，량조폭광량치저감도조>중감도조>고감도조（F=0.626~3.210，P<0.05），DAP치저감도조>중감도조>고감도（F=0.416~1.416, P<0.05），정상조도상질량비교급조성비교무차별（F=0.001~0.100, P>0.05），재초중조중저감도조여중감도조무차별（F=0.120~0.145, P>0.05），저감도조여고감도조급중감도조여고감도조유차이（F=1.655~2.360, P<0.05）。결론조절감도가이재불영향도상질량적전제하유효공제복사제량。정상체형가이선택고감도섭영，이초중체형가이선택중감도혹저감도섭영。
Purpose To investigate the effect of sensitivity on image quality and radiation dosage of digital chest radiography. Materials and Methods A total of 300 healthy people undergoing chest X-ray examination were randomly enrolled and divided into two groups according to body weight (150 people with normal weight and 150 overweight), which were further randomly divided into three subgroups (S200 subgroup with low-sensitivity, S400 subgroup with mid-sensitivity, S800 subgroup with high sensitivity, each subgroup contained 50 people). With other parameters unchanged, digital chest photography with different sensitivities was performed to each subgroup (S200, S400 and S800, respectively), and then uploaded the data to PACS and recorded mAs value and dose area product (DAP) value for each time. Then the image quality was assessed by three doctors in terms of mAs value, DAP, image quality score and noise score. Results In all subgroups of normal weight, differences on mAs and DAP were significant (F=1443.191-1829.895, P<0.05) whilst differences on image quality score and noise score were not significant (F=0.686-2.516, P>0.05). In all overweight subgroups, differences in mAs, DAP, image quality score and noise score were significant (F=163.358-290.656, P<0.05). According to one-factor analysis of variance, mAs value was S200>S400>S800 (F=0.626-3.210, P<0.05), DAP value was S200>S400>S800 (F=0.416-1.416, P<0.05), there was no difference in image quality score and noise score (F=0.001-0.100, P>0.05). In overweight group, there was no difference between subgroups of S200 and S400 (F=0.120-0.145, P>0.05); whilst differences between subgroups of S200 and S800 were significant, the same appeared in subgroups of S400 and S800 (F=1.655-2.360, P<0.05). Conclusion Radiation dose can be effectively controlled by regulating sensitivity with image quality unaffected. It is advisable to choose high-sensitivity photography for patients with normal weight and low or mid-sensitivity photography for overweight patients.