4.5 Article

Helical CT of the body: Are settings adjusted for pediatric patients?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
Volume 176, Issue 2, Pages 297-301

Publisher

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760297

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to determine whether adjustments related to patient age are made in the scanning parameters that are determinants of radiation dose for helical CT of pediatric patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. This prospective investigation included all body (chest and abdomen) helical CT examinations (n = 58) of neonates, infants, and children (n = 32) referred from outside institutions for whom radiologic consultation was requested. Information recorded included tube current, kilovoltage, collimation, and pitch. Examinations were arbitrarily grouped on the basis of the individual's age: group A, 0-4 years: group B, 5-8 years, group C, 9-12 years, and group D, 13-16 years old. RESULTS. Thirty-one percent (18/58) of the CT examinations were of the chest and 69% (40/58) were of the abdomen. Sixteen percent (9/58) of the CT examinations were combined chest and abdomen. In 22% (2/9) of these combined examinations, tube current was adjusted between the chest and abdomen CT; in one (11%)of these examinations, the tube current was higher for the chest than for the abdomen portion of the CT examination. The mean tube current setting for chest was 213 mA and was 206 mA for the abdomen, with no evident adjustment in tube current based on the age of the patient. Fifty-six percent of the examinations of neonates, infants, or children 8 years old or younger were performed at a collimation of greater than 5 mm and 53% of these examinations were performed using a pitch of 1.0. CONCLUSION. Pediatric helical CT parameters are not adjusted on the basis of the examination type or the age of the child. In particular, these results suggest that pediatric patients may be exposed to an unnecessarily high radiation dose during body CT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available