Figure 1
Image of the anthropomorphic phantom used in the study.
Table 1
Basic statistical characteristics of the phantom study
| Variable | Projection | Mean | Standard deviation | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imaging field size (cm2) | AP | 725.5 | 120.0 | 690.1 | 587.4 | 913.5 |
| PA | 788.1 | 66.2 | 770.3 | 723.6 | 874.5 | |
| Dose-area product (μGy m2) | AP | 26.7 | 3.6 | 25.9 | 22.4 | 32.1 |
| PA | 28.6 | 2.0 | 28.0 | 26.7 | 31.0 | |
| Effective dose (μSv) | AP | 117 | 18 | 114 | 95 | 144 |
| PA | 85 | 5 | 83 | 80 | 91 | |
| Average image estimation | AP | 27.5 | 1.3 | 27.0 | 26.3 | 29.7 |
| PA | 27.3 | 1.1 | 27.7 | 25.3 | 28.0 |
Table 2
Results of patient study
| Variable | Projection | Mean | Standard deviation | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body mass index | AP | 26.6 | 3.2 | 26.3 | 19.7 | 35.2 |
| PA | 26.6 | 4.0 | 26.6 | 20.0 | 35.7 | |
| Imaging field size (cm2) | AP | 822.8 | 62.2 | 832.5 | 653.4 | 992.0 |
| PA | 830.8 | 65.4 | 848.4 | 630.9 | 941.1 | |
| Patient’s abdominal diameter (cm) | AP | 23.6 | 4.0 | 24.0 | 16.0 | 30.0 |
| PA | 21.2 | 2.8 | 22.0 | 15.5 | 28.0 | |
| Dose-area product μGy m2) | AP | 61.0 | 30.9 | 55.4 | 21.6 | 137.6 |
| PA | 44.7 | 19.8 | 41.4 | 15.3 | 94.5 | |
| Effective dose (μSv) | AP | 169 | 72 | 159 | 55 | 346 |
| PA | 79 | 24 | 77 | 45 | 136 | |
| Average image estimation | AP | 27.4 | 1.5 | 27.9 | 23.3 | 29.7 |
| PA | 27.5 | 1.4 | 28 | 24.7 | 29.7 |
Figure 2
The comparison of the patient’s abdominal diameter in AP and PA projection.
Figure 3
The comparison of DAP between the AP and PA projection.
Figure 4
The comparison of the effective dose in both projections.
Figure 5
Graphical comparison of the average image estimation between the AP and PA projection.