Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences最新文献

{"title":"Reduction of metal artefacts from bilateral hip prostheses during lower extremity computed tomography angiography: an experimental phantom study","authors":"Omarah N. Abdalqader MSc,&nbsp;Mohammad Hjouj PhD,&nbsp;Mohammad Aljamal PhD,&nbsp;Fawaz Hjouj PhD,&nbsp;Mohamed Abuzaid PhD,&nbsp;Mahmoud Mousa MSc","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.797","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.797","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Image quality reduction due to metallic artefacts is a significant challenge during vascular computed tomography (CT) imaging of the lower extremities in patients with hip prostheses. This study aims to analyse various reconstruction algorithms' ability to reduce metal artefacts due to two types of hip prostheses during lower extremity CT angiography examinations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A pelvis phantom was fabricated with the insertion of a tube filled with contrast media to simulate the femoral artery, and the phantom was then CT scanned with and without hip prostheses. Multimodal images were acquired using different kilovoltage peak (kVp) settings and reconstructed with different algorithms, such as filtered back projection (FBP), iterative reconstruction (iDose⁴), iterative model-based reconstruction (IMR) and orthopaedic metal artefact reduction (O-MAR). Image quality was assessed based on image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and Hounsfield unit (HU) deviation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The IMR approach significantly improved image quality compared to iDose⁴ and FBP. For the vascular region, O-MAR improves SNR by 5 ± 1, 23 ± 5 and 42 ± 9 for FBP, iDose⁴ and IMR respectively, and improves HU precision towards the baseline values by 49% and 83% for FBP and IMR, respectively. The noise reduction was 71% and 89% for FBP and IMR, and 57% for iDose⁴. O-MAR greatly enhances SNR corrections among the most severe artefacts, with 29 ± 1 and 43 ± 4 for FBP and IMR, compared to iDose⁴ by 37 ± 7.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>IMR combined with O-MAR could improve the CT angiography of the lower extremities of patients with a hip prosthesis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 3","pages":"421-431"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.797","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141468647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Systematic review of MRI safety literature in relation to radiofrequency thermal injury prevention","authors":"Cassandra Baker BAppSc(MedRadTech), MSc MRI,&nbsp;Barbara Nugent BSc (Hons), PgC (MRI), DCR(R), MRSO (MRSC™), MIPEM,&nbsp;David Grainger MSc MIPEM,&nbsp;Johnathan Hewis MSc Med Imag, PgCert LTHE, PgCert BE, BSc Hons DiRad, FHEA,&nbsp;Christina Malamateniou PhD, MA Clin. Education BSc (Hons) SFHEA DIC MAcaMEd","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.800","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.800","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a rapidly evolving modality, generally considered safe due to lack of ionising radiation. While MRI technology and techniques are improving, many of the safety concerns remain the same as when first established. Patient thermal injuries are the most frequently reported adverse event, accounting for 59% of MRI incidents to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Surveys indicate many incidents remain unreported. Patient thermal injuries are preventable and various methods for their mitigation have been published. However, recommendations can be variable, fragmented and confusing.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on MRI safety and associated skin injuries and offer comprehensive recommendations for radiographers to prevent skin thermal injuries.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Four journal databases were searched for sources published January 2010–May 2023, presenting information on MRI safety and thermal injuries.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <div>Of 26,801 articles returned, after careful screening and based on the eligibility criteria, only 79 articles and an additional 19 grey literature sources were included (<i>n</i> = 98). Included studies were examined using thematic analysis to determine if holistic recommendations can be provided to assist in preventing skin burns. This resulted in three simplified recommendations:\u0000\u0000 <ul>\u0000 \u0000 <li>Remove any electrically conductive items</li>\u0000 \u0000 <li>Insulate the patient to prevent any conductive loops or contact with objects</li>\u0000 \u0000 <li>Communicate regularly</li>\u0000 </ul>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>By implementing the above recommendations, it is estimated that 97% of skin burns could be prevented. With thermal injuries continuing to impact MRI safety, strategies to prevent skin burns and heating are essential. Assessing individual risks, rather than blanket policies, will help prevent skin thermal injuries occurring, improving patient care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 3","pages":"445-460"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.800","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141468648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Analysing false-positive errors when Australian radiographers use preliminary image evaluation.","authors":"Jermayne Takapautolo, Michael Neep, Deborah Starkey","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.809","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Diagnostic errors in the emergency departments can have major implications on patient outcomes. Preliminary Image Evaluation (PIE) is a brief comment written by a radiographer describing an acute or traumatic pathology on a radiograph and can be used to complement referrer's image interpretation in the absence of the radiologist report. Currently, no studies exist that focus their analysis on false-positive (FP) errors in PIE. The purpose of this study was to investigate the regions of the body that cause the most FP errors and recognise other areas in image interpretation that may need additional attention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A longitudinal retrospective clinical audit was conducted to determine the accuracy of radiographer PIE's over 5 years from January 2016 to December 2020. PIE's were compared to the radiologist report to assess for diagnostic accuracy. FP and unsure errors were further categorised by anatomical region and age.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over this period, a sample size of 11,090 PIE audits were included in the study demonstrating an overall PIE accuracy of 87.7%. Foot, ankle and chest regions caused the most FP errors, while ankle, shoulder and elbow caused the most unsure cases. 76% of the unsure cases were negative for any pathology when compared to the radiologist report. The paediatric population accounted for 21.3% of FP cases and 33.6% of unsure cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings in this study should be used to tailor education specific to radiographer image interpretation. Improving radiography image interpretation skills can assist in improving referrer diagnostic accuracy, thus improving patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141457427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Technology-enabled patient care in medical radiation sciences: the two sides of the coin","authors":"Christina Malamateniou PhD, MA, BSc (Hons), SFHEA, DIC, MAcadMEd","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.807","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.807","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is an exciting time to be working in healthcare and medical radiation sciences. This article discusses the potential benefits and risks of new technological interventions for patient benefit and outlines the need for co-production, governance and education to ensure these are used for advancing patients' well-being.\u0000 <figure>\u0000 <div><picture>\u0000 <source></source></picture><p></p>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </figure></p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 3","pages":"326-329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.807","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141457428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparing immobilisation devices in gynaecological external beam radiotherapy: improving inter-fraction reproducibility of pelvic tilt.","authors":"Shimon Prasad, Linda J Bell, Benjamin Zwan, Florence Ko, Tayla Blackwell, Kevin Connell, Cameron Stanton, Meegan Shepherd, John Atyeo, Mark Stevens, Marita Morgia","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.804","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim was to determine which immobilisation device improved inter-fraction reproducibly of pelvic tilt and required the least pre-treatment setup and planning interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen patients were retrospectively reviewed, eight immobilised using the BodyFIX system (BodyFIX®, Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and eight using the Butterfly Board (BB) (Bionix Radiation Therapy, Toledo, OH, USA). The daily pre-treatment images were reviewed to assess setup variations between each patient and groups for pelvic tilt, pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and the fifth lumbar spine (L5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the planning CT, pelvic tilt for most patients was within ±2° using the BodyFIX and ± 4° for the BB. The Butterfly Board had a slightly higher variance both for patient-to-patient (standard deviation of the systematic error) and day-to-day error (standard deviation of the random error). Variance in position between individual patients and the two stabilisation devices were minimal in the anterior-posterior (AP) and superior-inferior (SI) direction for the pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and L5 spine. Re-imaged fractions due to pelvic tilt reduced by about half when BodyFIX was used (39.1% BB, 19.4% BodyFIX). One patient treated with the BB required a re-scan for pelvic tilt. Three patients required a re-scan for body contour variations (two using BodyFIX and one with the BB).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BodyFIX resulted in a more accurate inter-fraction setup and efficient treatment and is used as the standard stabilisation for gynaecological patients at our centre. It reduced the pelvic tilt variance and reduced the need for re-imaging pre-treatment by half.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141419510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Renal screening sonography-A comparative study in a Portuguese basic emergency service.","authors":"Sérgio Miravent, Carmen Jiménez, Narciso Barbancho, Manuel Duarte Lobo, Teresa Figueiredo, Carla Gomes, Ion Ratusneac, João Mário Gonçalves, Corina Hasnas, Rui de Almeida","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.802","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Renal Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) is a screening modality that aids in clinical decision-making for patients with suspected renal colic. This study intends to compare the accuracy and pertinence of sonographic findings obtained by a sonographer in a Basic Emergency Service (BES) with the imaging findings at the Referral Hospital (RH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-one patients suspected of having renal pathology underwent initial sonography screening with POCUS at the BES and were subsequently referred to the RH for additional imaging examinations. The results of both examinations were compared to verify whether the findings from the BES were confirmed by the radiologist in the RH and to ensure that the patient referrals from BES to RH were appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our sample, the majority of patients (80%) exhibited varying degrees of pyelocaliceal distension, with nearly half (48%) patients presenting obstructions. A strong association between the sonographic findings in the BES and the RH was found in the variables 'Dilatation of pyelocaliceal system' (V = 0.895; P = 0.00), 'Simple cystic formation' (V = 0.878; P = 0.000), respectively. There was a statistically significant correlation between BES and RH findings, indicating a strong association between these two variables, respectively (k = 0.890; P = 0.000) and (k = 0.870; P = 0.000). There was also a strong statistically significant correlation in the ultrasonographic findings between BES and RH performers (k = 0.890; P = 0.000 and k = 0.870; P = 0.000). In this research, an achieved sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 85% were demonstrated in the identification of pyelocaliceal dilatation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Renal POCUS screening successfully detected abnormalities in the urinary system of patients suspected of having renal colic. The sonographic findings at the BES had a good correlation with the complementary imaging results obtained at the RH in Portugal. These results suggest that Radiographers/Sonographers can have an important role in the preliminary assessment of urgent renal pathology in remote areas, contributing to a correct referral and early treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141419512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.805","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.805","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maximise your CPD by reading the following selected article and answer the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS – Volume 71, Issue 4, December 2024.</p><p>Scan this QR code to find the answers.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 3","pages":"491"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.805","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141419511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Continuing Professional Development - Radiation Therapy","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.799","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.799","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maximise your CPD by reading the following selected article and answer the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS – Volume 71, Issue 4 December 2024.</p><p>Scan this QR code to find the answers.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 2","pages":"319"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.799","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141296267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Multi-centre digital radiography reject analysis for different clinical room use types: The establishment of local reject reference levels for public hospital departments","authors":"Daniel Serra MSc, BSc,&nbsp;Michael J Neep PhD, MSc, BApp Sci(Med Rad Tech),&nbsp;Elaine Ryan PhD, MSc, BSc (Hons), PGDip(IPEM)","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.796","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.796","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Reject analysis in digital radiography helps guide the training of staff to reduce patient radiation dose and improve department efficiency. The purpose of this study was to perform a multi-centre, vendor agnostic reject analysis across different room usage types, and to provide benchmarks for comparison.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Retrospective reject and exposure log data were collected via USB from fixed general X-ray systems across multiple Australian sites, for collation and analysis. The overall reject rate, local reject reference level, absolute and relative reject rates for body part categories, reject rates by room usage types and the reject rate for each reason of rejection were calculated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Data were collected from 44 X-ray systems, across 11 hospitals. A total of 2,031,713 acquired images and 172,495 rejected images were included. The median reject rate was 9.1%. The local reject reference level (LRRL), set as the 75<i>th</i> percentile of all reject rates, was 10.6%. Median reject rates by room type were emergency (7.4%), inpatients + outpatients (9.6%), outpatients (9.2%), and hybrid (10.1%). The highest absolute reject rates by body part were chest (2.1%) and knee (1.4%). The highest relative rates by body part were knee (18.1%) and pelvis (17.2%). The most frequent reasons for image rejection were patient positioning (76%) and patient motion (7.5%).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The results compare well with previously published data. The range of reject rates highlights the need to analyse typical reject rates in different ways. With analysis feedback to participating sites and the implementation of standardised reject reasons, future analysis should monitor whether reject rates reduce.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 3","pages":"412-420"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.796","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141283893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evidence-based practice in radiography: A strategy for shifting our culture","authors":"Laura Di Michele GradDipHM, BMedRadSc(DR), SFHEA,&nbsp;Amani Bell PhD, BSc (Hons), GradCertHigherEd, SFHEA,&nbsp;Kate Thomson PhD, GradCertEdStudies (HigherEd), MIH (Dist), BPsych (Hons), FHERDSA, SFHEA,&nbsp;Warren Reed PhD, PGCert TLHE, BSc (Hons)","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.801","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.801","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evidence-based practice (EBP) has a vital role to play in improving outcomes for patients, organisations and individual practitioners. Unfortunately, within diagnostic radiography, literature consistently demonstrates that positive EBP is not the norm. This editorial discusses a strategy for fostering cultural change within the profession to improve EBP.\u0000 <figure>\u0000 <div><picture>\u0000 <source></source></picture><p></p>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </figure></p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 3","pages":"323-325"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.801","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141262028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}