| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Full Paper |
1 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Applied Sciences Faculty, Pleinlaan 2, 1200 Brussels and 2 Academisch Ziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Radiology Department, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
We evaluated examination protocols used for common CT procedures of paediatric patients at different hospitals in Belgium in order to determine whether adjustments related to patient size are made in scanning parameters, and to compare patient doses with proposed reference levels. Three paediatric hospitals and one non-paediatric hospital participated in the study. Weighted CT dose-index (CTDIw), doselength product (DLP) and effective dose (E) were evaluated for three patient ages (1 year, 5 years and 10 years) and three common procedures (brain, thorax and abdomen). CTDIw and DLP values higher than the reference levels were found for all types of evaluated examination. E ranged from 0.4 mSv to 2.3 mSv, 1.1 mSv to 6.6 mSv, and 2.3 mSv to 19.9 mSv for brain, thorax and abdomen examinations, respectively. All centres but one adapted their protocols as a function of patient size. However, no common trend in the selection of protocols was observed. Some centres divided the whole range of patient size into only two/three groups by age, while others classified the patients into six groups by weight. It was also observed that some centres used the same mAs for the total range of patient sizes and decreased the pitch factor for small children, which resulted in higher doses. This indicates the importance of careful selection of technical scan parameters. If CT parameters used for paediatric patients are not adjusted on the basis of examination type, age and/or size of the child, then some patients will be exposed to an unnecessarily high radiation dose during CT examinations.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K Fujii, T Aoyama, S Koyama, and C Kawaura Comparative evaluation of organ and effective doses for paediatric patients with those for adults in chest and abdominal CT examinations Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2007; 80(956): 657 - 667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. L. Hollingsworth, T. T. Yoshizumi, D. P. Frush, F. P. Chan, G. Toncheva, G. Nguyen, C. R. Lowry, and L. M. Hurwitz Pediatric Cardiac-Gated CT Angiography: Assessment of Radiation Dose Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 12 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Tsapaki, J. E. Aldrich, R. Sharma, M. A. Staniszewska, A. Krisanachinda, M. Rehani, A. Hufton, C. Triantopoulou, P. N. Maniatis, J. Papailiou, et al. Dose Reduction in CT while Maintaining Diagnostic Confidence: Diagnostic Reference Levels at Routine Head, Chest, and Abdominal CT--IAEA-coordinated Research Project Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 828 - 834. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| BJR | DMFR | IMAGING | ALL BIR JOURNALS |