GASTROINTESTINAL AND ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY / ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparison of image quality of split-bolus computed tomography
versus dual-phase computed tomography in abdominal trauma
1
Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
Submission date: 2024-09-20
Final revision date: 2025-01-13
Acceptance date: 2025-02-03
Publication date: 2025-03-31
Corresponding author
Pol J Radiol, 2025; 90: 151-160
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
To compare the image quality in single-pass split-bolus abdominal computed tomography (CT) and conventional biphasic CT in abdominal trauma patients.
Material and methods:
Sixty-six consecutive abdominal trauma patients referred for CT were randomised into 2 groups: the study group (n = 33), scanned using the split-bolus technique; and the control group (n = 33), scanned using the conventional biphasic technique. CT image quality was analysed subjectively by 2 observers based on a 5-point Likert scale. The images were also analysed quantitatively for attenuation values achieved by region of interest (ROI) placements in major arteries, veins, and solid organs. In addition, the radiation dose in terms of the dose length product (DLP) was compared between the 2 groups.
Results:
The image quality in both groups ranged from good to excellent in most cases. There was no statistically significant difference in subjective image quality in both the groups as assessed by Likert score. Attenuation values in solid organs and major venous structures were significantly higher in the split-bolus group (p < 0.001). Arterial attenuation values were significantly higher in the control group (p < 0.001), but diagnostic levels were achieved in all patients. There was a reduction of 31.1% in DLP in the split-bolus group.
Conclusions:
The split-bolus technique offers comparable image quality and higher solid organ and venous enhancement than conventional biphasic protocol at a reduced radiation dose.
To compare the image quality in single-pass split-bolus abdominal computed tomography (CT) and conventional biphasic CT in abdominal trauma patients.
Material and methods:
Sixty-six consecutive abdominal trauma patients referred for CT were randomised into 2 groups: the study group (n = 33), scanned using the split-bolus technique; and the control group (n = 33), scanned using the conventional biphasic technique. CT image quality was analysed subjectively by 2 observers based on a 5-point Likert scale. The images were also analysed quantitatively for attenuation values achieved by region of interest (ROI) placements in major arteries, veins, and solid organs. In addition, the radiation dose in terms of the dose length product (DLP) was compared between the 2 groups.
Results:
The image quality in both groups ranged from good to excellent in most cases. There was no statistically significant difference in subjective image quality in both the groups as assessed by Likert score. Attenuation values in solid organs and major venous structures were significantly higher in the split-bolus group (p < 0.001). Arterial attenuation values were significantly higher in the control group (p < 0.001), but diagnostic levels were achieved in all patients. There was a reduction of 31.1% in DLP in the split-bolus group.
Conclusions:
The split-bolus technique offers comparable image quality and higher solid organ and venous enhancement than conventional biphasic protocol at a reduced radiation dose.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Ghosh P, Halder SK, Paira SK, Mukherjee R, Kumar SK, Mukherjee SK. An epidemiological analysis of patients with abdominal trauma in an eastern Indian metropolitan city. J Indian Med Assoc 2011; 109: 19-23.
2.
Expert Panel on Major Trauma Imaging; Shyu JY, Khurana B, Soto JA, Biffl WL, Camacho MA, Diercks DB, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Major Blunt Trauma. J Am Coll Radiol 2020; 17(5S): S160-S174.
3.
Iacobellis F, Romano L, Rengo A, Danzi R, Scuderi MG, Brillantino A, et al. CT protocol optimization in trauma imaging: a review of current evidence. Curr Radiol Rep 2020; 8: 8.
4.
Jansen JO, Yule SR, Loudon MA. Investigation of blunt abdominal trauma. BMJ 2008; 336: 938-942.
5.
Değirmenci S. Role of Ultrasound Simulators in the Training for Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST). Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Mar 3]; Available from: https://jag.journalagent.com/t....
6.
Lubner M, Menias C, Rucker C, Bhalla S, Peterson CM, Wang L, et al. Blood in the belly: CT findings of hemoperitoneum. Radiographics 2007; 27: 109-125.
7.
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, et al. Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 2013; 346: f2360. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f2360.
8.
Brook OR, Gourtsoyianni S, Brook A, Siewert B, Kent T, Raptopoulos V. Split-bolus spectral multidetector CT of the pancreas: assessment of radiation dose and tumor conspicuity. Radiology 2013; 269: 139-148.
9.
Dillman JR, Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Francis IR, Nan B, et al. Comparison of urinary tract distension and opacification using single-bolus 3-phase vs split-bolus 2-phase multidetector row CT urography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31: 750-757.
10.
O’Regan PW, Dewhurst C, O’Mahony AT, O’Regan C, O’Leary V, O’Connor G, et al. Split-bolus single-phase versus single-bolus split-phase CT acquisition protocols for staging in patients with testicular cancer: a retrospective study. Radiography (Lond) 2024; 30: 628-633.
11.
Loupatatzis C, Schindera S, Gralla J, Hoppe H, Bittner J, Schröder R, et al. Whole-body computed tomography for multiple traumas using a triphasic injection protocol. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1206-1214.
12.
Nguyen D, Platon A, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Becker CD, Poletti PA. Evaluation of a single-pass continuous whole-body 16-MDCT protocol for patients with polytrauma. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 3-10.
13.
Yaniv G, Portnoy O, Simon D, Bader S, Konen E, Guranda L. Revised protocol for whole-body CT for multi-trauma patients applying triphasic injection followed by a single-pass scan on a 64-MDCT. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: 668-675.
14.
Leung V, Sastry A, Woo TD, Jones HR. Implementation of a split-bolus single-pass CT protocol at a UK major trauma centre to reduce excess radiation dose in trauma pan-CT. Clin Radiol 2015; 70: 1110-1115.
15.
Hakim W, Kamanahalli R, Dick E, Bharwani N, Fetherston S, Kashef E. Trauma whole-body MDCT: an assessment of image quality in conventional dual-phase and modified biphasic injection. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20160160. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160160.
16.
Godt JC, Eken T, Schulz A, Johansen CK, Aarsnes A, Dormagen JB. Triple-split-bolus versus single-bolus CT in abdominal trauma patients: a comparative study. Acta Radiol 2018; 59: 1038-1044.
18.
Jeavons C, Hacking C, Beenen LF, Gunn ML. A review of split-bolus single-pass CT in the assessment of trauma patients. Emerg Radiol 2018; 25: 367-374.
19.
Flammia F, Chiti G, Trinci M, Danti G, Cozzi D, Grassi R, et al. Optimization of CT protocol in polytrauma patients: an update. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2022; 26: 2543-2555.
20.
American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR practice parameter for the performance and interpretation of body computed tomography angiography (CTA). 2011; revised: 2016. Available from: https://www.acr.org/-/media/AC...- Parameters/Body-CTA.pdf?la=en (Accessed: 12.01.2025).
21.
Wirth S, Hebebrand J, Basilico R, Berger FH, Blanco A, Calli C, et al. European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version). Insights Imaging 2020; 11: 135. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-020-00947-7.
22.
Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal D. Likert Scale: explored and explained. BJAST 2015; 7: 396-403.
23.
Dixe De Oliveira Santo I, Sailer A, Solomon N, Borse R, Cavallo J, Teitelbaum J, et al. Grading abdominal trauma: changes in and implications of the revised 2018 AAST-OIS for the spleen, liver, and kidney. Radiographics 2023; 43: e230040. DOI: 10.1148/rg.230040.
24.
Mayo-Smith WW, Hara AK, Mahesh M, Sahani DV, Pavlicek W. How I do it: managing radiation dose in CT. Radiology 2014; 273: 657-672.
25.
Healy DA, Hegarty A, Feeley I, Clarke-Moloney M, Grace PA, Walsh SR. Systematic review and meta-analysis of routine total body CT compared with selective CT in trauma patients. Emerg Med J 2014; 31: 101-108.
26.
Lui HKH, Lee DTF, Cheng JHM, Tang KYK, Chu CY, Leung WKW, et al. Single-pass split-bolus whole-body contrast-enhanced computed tomography protocol for trauma patients. Hong Kong J Radiol 2021; 24: 92-98.
27.
Miller-Thomas MM, West OC, Cohen AM. Diagnosing traumatic arterial injury in the extremities with CT angiography: pearls and pitfalls. Radiographics 2005; 25 (Suppl 1): S133-S142.
28.
Kulkarni NM, Fung A, Kambadakone AR, Yeh BM. Computed tomography techniques, protocols, advancements, and future directions in liver diseases. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am 2021; 29: 305-320.
29.
Beenen LF, Sierink JC, Kolkman S, Nio CY, Saltzherr TP, Dijkgraaf MG, et al. Split bolus technique in polytrauma: a prospective study on scan protocols for trauma analysis. Acta Radiol 2015; 56: 873-880.
30.
Stedman JM, Franklin JM, Nicholl H, Anderson EM, Moore NR. Splenic parenchymal heterogeneity at dual-bolus single-acquisition CT in polytrauma patients – 6-months experience from Oxford, UK. Emerg Radiol 2014; 21: 257-260.
31.
Marovic P, Beech PA, Koukounaras J, Kavnoudias H, Goh GS. Accuracy of dual bolus single acquisition computed tomography in the diagnosis and grading of adult traumatic splenic parenchymal and vascular injury. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017; 61: 725-731.
32.
Stengel D, Ottersbach C, Matthes G, Weigeldt M, Grundei S, Rademacher G, et al. Accuracy of single-pass whole-body computed tomography for detection of injuries in patients with major blunt trauma. CMAJ 2012; 184: 869-876.
33.
Scialpi M, Schiavone R. Single-pass split-bolus CT protocol in polytrauma: reproducibility and diagnostic efficacy. Acta Radiol 2015; 56: NP47-NP48. DOI: 10.1177/0284185115610936.
34.
Rocha AC, Alamo L, Ostojic N, Chevallier C, Tenisch E. Development of a user-friendly calculator for a pediatric split-bolus polytrauma computed tomography protocol. Pediatr Radiol 2024; 54: 2077-2081.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
