Researchers at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center used video goggles to distract children undergoing PET or CT scans to determine whether they created CT and PET artifacts.

Thirty non-sedated patients aged four to 13 years old, watched videos of their choice using the goggles during whole-body PET/CT imaging. Half of the patients were tested using a scanner installed in 2006 and the other half with one from 2013.

“The fused scans were reviewed for evidence of head movement, and the individual PET and CT scans of the head were reviewed for the presence and severity of streak artifact. The CT exposure settings were recorded for each scan at the anatomic level at which the goggles were worn,” wrote Michael J. Gelfand, MD, faculty member at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues.

The results showed that one out of 30 scans had evidence of significant head motion, two had minor coregistration problems due to motion and the remaining 27 had very good to excellent coregistration.

“For the 2006 scanner, two of the 14 evaluable localization CT scans of the head demonstrated no streak artifact in brain tissue, six of the 14 had mild streak artifact and six of the 14 had moderate streak artifact in brain tissue. Mild streak artifact in bone was noted in two of the 14 studies,” wrote the researchers. “For the 2013 scanner, seven of 15 studies had mild streak artifact in brain tissue, and eight of 15 had no streak artifact in brain tissue, whereas none had streak artifact in bone. “

For the 29 evaluable patients, the PET brain images showed no artifacts attributable to the goggles. The average CT exposure parameters at the level of the orbits were 36 percent lower on the 2013 scanner than on the 2006 scanner.

“Video goggles may be used successfully to distract children undergoing PET with localization CT. The goggles cause no significant degradation of the PET brain images or the CT skull images. The degree of artifact on brain tissue images varies from none to moderate and depends on the CT equipment used,” wrote Gelfand et al.