##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Background: Quality control (QC) of computed tomography (CT) scanners is important to evaluate succinctly quality image and radiation dose obtainable in a clinical environment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of images generated by CT scanners used at some diagnostic facilities in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Materials and Methods: A cross sectional design was employed in this study, four centers were studied, one government hospital and three private hospitals. The head CT phantom was used to verify the accomplishment of the CT scanners performance to the international quality requirements. Regions of interest were selected at the center of the image and at the periphery to obtain results for the CT number for water test, uniformity test, noise, and artifact test.

Results: The mean CT number for water across the centers ranged from –0.12 HU to –2.2 HU which were within ±3 HU recommended by the equipment manufacturer. Values of standard deviation of the mean CT number ranged from 2.41 to 5.77 HU which to a little extent exceeded the set ±5 HU tolerance range. Similarly, the presence of streak artifact was observed in the images obtained at one center.

Conclusion: Two out of the four computed tomography scanners assessed passed the four tests performed. Noise and artifact were the problem observed at centers B and C respectively. There was however no likelihood of periodic performance of these basic quality control tests at two of the centers in this study. Adequate records of quality control data should be kept regularly to allow in-depth analysis of failure rates of different tests, changes occurring during equipment lifetime and comparisons among CT scanners.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. E. Seeram, (2001), Computed tomography technology, Philadelphia, WB Saunders.
     Google Scholar
  2. P. Lloyd, (2001), Quality Assurance Workbook for Radiographers & Radiological Technologists. World Health Organization, Geneva.
     Google Scholar
  3. E. Burns, (1992), Radiographic Imaging. 2ndEd. Saunders, USA.
     Google Scholar
  4. L. Nute, R. John, M. Donna, J. Brandon, D. Dianna, (2013), Evaluation of over 100 years of computed tomography daily quality control data. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23635278.
     Google Scholar
  5. J. Hsieh, (2003), Investigation of an image artifact induced by projection of noise in homogeneity in multislice helical computed tomography. Physmed, pp. 345-356.
     Google Scholar
  6. M. Sidi, (2016), Evaluation of some quality control parameters in Diagnostic computed tomography scanners in Kano metropolis, Nigeria. Indiana Journal of Applied Research, vol. 6, Issue 3. pp. 205-207.
     Google Scholar
  7. Z. Mansour, A. Mokhtar, A. Sarhan, M. Ahmed, T. El-Diasty, (2016), Quality Control of CT image using American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom, The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, issue 4, December 2016, pp. 1665-1671.
     Google Scholar
  8. P. Nookala, (2005), Modification of CT assurance phantom for PET/CT alignment and PET resolution. LSU Master’s Thesis. 4202.
     Google Scholar
  9. G. Bagher, E. Mahnaz, B. Zhaleh, Z. Reza, R. Soheila, (2018), Assessment of water CT number, field uniformity and noise in diagnostics computed tomography scanners in Urmia metropolis, Iran. International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research, vol. Issue 1:0976-2612. Available at: http://www.bipublication.com.
     Google Scholar
  10. R. J. Cropp, P. Seslija, D. Tso, Y. Thakur, Scanner and kVp dependence of measured CT numbers in the ACR CT phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys., 2013; 14(6): 4417. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4417.
     Google Scholar