Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the impact of arm position in computed tomography (CT) of the clavicle performed for forensic age estimation on clavicular position, image noise, and radiation dose. Methods and materials Forty-seven CT scans of the medial clavicular epiphysis performed for forensic age estimation were conducted with either hands and arms held upwards (CTHU, 28 persons) or positioned at the body (CTHD, 19 persons). Presets were identical for both positions (70 mAs/140 kVp; Brilliance iCT, Philips). Each CT scan was reconstructed with an iterative algorithm (i-Dose 4) and evaluated at the middle of the sternoclavicular joint. Clavicular angle was measured on a.p. topograms in relation to a horizontal line. Quantitative image noise was measured in air at the level of medial clavicular epiphysis. Effective dose and scan length were recorded. Results Hands-up position compared with hands-down position resulted in a lower lateral body diameter (CTHU 41.1 ± 3.6 cm vs. CTHD 44.6 ± 3.1 cm; P = 0.03), a reduced quantitative image noise (CTHU: 39.5 ± 9.2; CTHD: 46.2 ± 8.3; P = 0.02), and lower CTDIvol (5.1 ± 1.4 mGy vs. 6.7 ± 1.8 mGy; P = 0.001). Scan length was longer in patients examined with hands up (HU: 8.5 ± 3.4 cm; HD: 6.2 ± 2.1 cm; P = 0.006). Mean effective dose for CTHU was 0.79 ± 0.32 mSv compared with 0.95 ± 0.38 mSv in CTHD (P = 0.12). Clavicular angle was 17° ± 6° in patients with hands down and 32° ± 7° in patients with hands up (P < 0.001). Conclusion By elevated arm positioning, the image quality of clavicular CT scans can be improved while maintaining radiation dose compared with hands down. Clavicular position differs according to the hand position. Thus, positioning patients with elevated hands is advisable for forensic clavicular CT examinations, but multiplanar CT reconstructions should be adjusted to clavicular position and scan length should be reduced to a minimum.

Purpose To compare the image quality, examination time, and total energy release of a standardized pediatric brain tumor magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol performed with and without compressed sensitivity encoding (C-SENSE). Recently introduced as an acceleration technique in MRI, we hypothesized that C‑SENSE would improve image quality, reduce the examination time and radiofrequency-induced energy release compared with conventional examination in a pediatric brain tumor protocol. Methods This retrospective study included 22 patients aged 2.33–18.83 years with different brain tumor types who had previously undergone conventional MRI examination and underwent follow-up C‑SENSE examination. Both examinations were conducted with a 3.0-Tesla device and included pre-contrast and post-contrast T1-weighted turbo-field-echo, T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo, and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences. Image quality was assessed in four anatomical regions of interest (tumor area, cerebral cortex, basal ganglia, and posterior fossa) using a 5-point scale. Reader preference between the standard and C‑SENSE images was evaluated. The total examination duration and energy deposit were compared based on scanner log file analysis. Results Relative to standard examinations, C‑SENSE examinations were characterized by shorter total examination times (26.1 ± 3.93 vs. 22.18 ± 2.31 min; P = 0.001), reduced total energy deposit (206.0 ± 19.7 vs. 92.3 ± 18.2 J/kg; P < 0.001), and higher image quality (overall P < 0.001). Conclusion C‑SENSE contributes to the improvement of image quality, reduction of scan times and radiofrequency-induced energy release relative to the standard protocol in pediatric brain tumor MRI.

BackgroundAssessing patient experiences is essential to provide high quality health‐care. The objectives of this study were to examine (1) child‐ and parent‐reported information status before magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), (2) experiences during an MRI and (3) needs and suggestions for improvement.MethodsChildren (≥8 years) and parents answered questionnaires (before and after planned MRI examination) covering mental condition, information status/needs, preparation for MRI, and potential stressors. Before MRI n = 132 accompanying parents and n = 91 children provided data (after MRI: n = 93 parents; n = 71 children). The mean age of the children undergoing MRI was 10.5 years (SD = 4.9). Children had on average seven previous MRIs before our survey (Range: 1–33). Twenty‐three percent of the children were to be sedated during the examination.ResultsParents and children reported low to medium levels of burden, high knowledge and high information status. For the children, most stressful factors during the MRI were boredom and noise. Main information resources were the radiologists or self‐searches. Parents of children with their first MRI reported higher anxiety levels in their children and stated a worse information status (main information source: self‐searches/internet).Parents reported needs regarding organization of the MRI (e.g., reduction of waiting times), age‐appropriate information and communication during the MRI. Children wished to visit the MRI room prior the examination (44%) and to get more information (44%). Children suggested improvements such as better sound quality of films/music, more transparency about the procedure, being in contact with a parent and shorter examinations.ConclusionResults suggest that preparation, information provision and care is perceived positively by families. Needs and suggestions for improvement were, for example, higher transparency of procedures, better communication and reduction of stress. Findings indicate that preparation in routine‐care should follow an individualized child‐focused approach, should focus on families without previous MRIs and should address children with high anxiety levels.