Using the T11 vertebra to minimise the CT-KUB scan field

Abstract

Objectives: Computed tomography scans of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (CT-KUB) are crucial in investigating urinary calculi but impart a substantial radiation doses. Radiation can be limited by minimising the scanning field to the necessary area (i.e. from the kidneys to urethra). Before auditing, the superior limit of CT-KUB scans had not been formally clarified at our trust. Consistently ensuring the upper limit of scans is at or below T10 has been shown to be a viable method of performing CT-KUB scans. This study aimed to assess the overscan length of CT-KUB investigations and modify practice accordingly to minimise it. There were two standards that were set for CT-KUB scanning. First, the mean percentage overscan length (i.e. percentage of the scan above the kidneys) should be <15%. Second, all scans should include the superior borders of both kidneys. Methods: 90 consecutive CT-KUB scans for ureteric calculus were retrospectively investigated using IMPAX software in the first phase of data collection. After these data were analysed, a newly devised protocol using T11 as the superior scan limit was delivered to radiographers in the department. and 105 in the second phase (re-audit). The analysis parameters were: percentage overscan length, distance between diaphragm and upper border of kidneys, vertebral level at which the scan commenced, and whether both kidneys were fully included. Results: In the first phase, overscan of >15% was present in 94.4% of scans. The mean percentage overscan length was 28.2%. The superior vertebral limit of 59% of scans was at T10 or below and a lower superior vertebral limit correlated with decreasing overscan. 99% of scans fully included both kidneys. In the second phase (3 months later), the mean overscan percentage reduced to 10.6% (standard deviation = 4.4%). Excessive overscan affected 35.2% of scans. The superior vertebral limit of 8% of scans was at T10 or below. 100% of scans fully included both kidneys. Conclusion: Excessive overscanning was due to inconsistent technique in capturing CT-KUB scans. Before this audit, the superior limit of CT-KUB scans had not been formally clarified at our trust. By successfully standardising the process with a reproducible method, the overscan target was comfortably met. Therefore, patient dose was minimised without compromising scan quality. Advances in knowledge: This audit has successfully shown a feasible standardised protocol for CT-KUB investigations which can be used to minimise overscanning of patients.