Display options
Cite
Sun Z, Al Ghamdi K, Baroum I. Multislice CT of the head and body routine scans: Are scanning protocols adjusted for paediatric patients?. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2012;8(1):e3doi: 10.2349/biij.8.1.e3.
Sun, Z., Al Ghamdi, K., & Baroum, I. (2012). Multislice CT of the head and body routine scans: Are scanning protocols adjusted for paediatric patients?. Biomedical imaging and intervention journal, 8(1), e3. https://doi.org/10.2349/biij.8.1.e3
Sun, Z, et al. "Multislice CT of the head and body routine scans: Are scanning protocols adjusted for paediatric patients?." Biomedical imaging and intervention journal vol. 8,1 (2012): e3. doi: https://doi.org/10.2349/biij.8.1.e3
Sun Z, Al Ghamdi K, Baroum I. Multislice CT of the head and body routine scans: Are scanning protocols adjusted for paediatric patients?. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2012 Jan;8(1):e3. doi: 10.2349/biij.8.1.e3. Epub 2012 Jan 01. PMID: 22970059; PMCID: PMC3432222.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2012 Jan;8(1):e3. doi: 10.2349/biij.8.1.e3. Epub 2012 Jan 01.

Multislice CT of the head and body routine scans: Are scanning protocols adjusted for paediatric patients?.

Biomedical imaging and intervention journal

Z Sun, Ks Al Ghamdi, Ih Baroum

Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Medical Imaging, Department of Imaging and Applied Physics, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.

PMID: 22970059 PMCID: PMC3432222 DOI: 10.2349/biij.8.1.e3

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the multislice CT scanning protocols of head, chest and abdomen are adjusted according to patient's age in paediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multislice CT examination records of paediatric patients undergoing head, chest and abdomen scans from three public hospitals during a one-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorised into the following age groups: under 4 years, 5-8 years, 9-12 years and 13-16 years, while the tube current was classified into the following ranges: < 49 mA, 50-99 mA, 100-149 mA, 150-199 mA, > 200 mA and unknown.

RESULTS: A total of 4998 patient records, comprising a combination of head, chest and abdomen CT scans, were assessed, with head CT scans representing nearly half of the total scans. Age-based adjusted CT protocols were observed in most of the scans with higher tube current setting being used with increasing age. However, a high tube current (150-199 mA) was still used in younger patients (0-8 years) undergoing head CT scans. In one hospital, CT protocols remained constant across all age groups, indicating potential overexposure to the patients.

CONCLUSION: This analysis shows that paediatric CT scans are adjusted according to the patient's age in most of the routine CT examinations. This indicates increased awareness regarding radiation risks associated with CT. However, high tube current settings are still used in younger patient groups, thus, optimisation of paediatric CT protocols and implementation of current guidelines, such as age-and weight-based scanning, should be recommended in daily practice.

Keywords: Multislice CT; paediatric imaging; radiation; radiation risk; tube current

References

  1. Pediatr Radiol. 2010 Mar;40(3):294-300 - PubMed
  2. Eur Radiol. 2004 May;14(5):835-41 - PubMed
  3. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 May;194(5):1177-82 - PubMed
  4. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84 - PubMed
  5. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Mar;178(3):721-6 - PubMed
  6. Pediatr Radiol. 2009 Jul;39(7):668-76 - PubMed
  7. Eur Radiol. 2004 Jun;14(6):995-9 - PubMed
  8. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):303-6 - PubMed
  9. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Apr;182(4):849-59 - PubMed
  10. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):297-301 - PubMed
  11. Pediatr Radiol. 2006 Dec;36(12):1273-82 - PubMed
  12. Singapore Med J. 2010 Jun;51(6):457-63 - PubMed
  13. Clin Radiol. 2005 Feb;60(2):224-31 - PubMed
  14. Acta Radiol. 2009 Dec;50(10):1175-81 - PubMed
  15. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Nov;76(2):288-93 - PubMed
  16. Australas Radiol. 2003 Jun;47(2):135-42 - PubMed
  17. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Feb;180(2):401-6 - PubMed
  18. Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):369-70; author reply 370 - PubMed
  19. Pediatr Radiol. 2001 Jun;31(6):388; discussion 389-91 - PubMed
  20. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Oct;195(4):W299-301 - PubMed
  21. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Oct;183(4):1172; author reply 1172 - PubMed
  22. Pediatr Radiol. 2008 Jun;38(6):645-56 - PubMed
  23. Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):817-23 - PubMed
  24. Eur Radiol. 2002 Jun;12(6):1571-6 - PubMed
  25. Clin Radiol. 2007 Jun;62(6):507-17 - PubMed
  26. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug;191(2):611-7 - PubMed
  27. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 May;192(5):1169-75 - PubMed
  28. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):289-96 - PubMed
  29. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):287 - PubMed
  30. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004 Feb;1(2):113-9 - PubMed
  31. Pediatrics. 2003 Oct;112(4):951-7 - PubMed
  32. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Aug;181(2):321-9 - PubMed
  33. Pediatr Radiol. 2002 Oct;32(10):729-34; discussion 751-4 - PubMed

Publication Types