4.4 Article

Effective Radiation Exposure in Evaluation and Follow-up of Patients With Urolithiasis

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 79, 期 1, 页码 43-47

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.07.1387

关键词

-

资金

  1. Northeastern AUA
  2. Montreal General Hospital Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To quantify the effective radiation dose associated with the evaluation and follow-up of patients with urolithiasis. METHODS Retrospective review was performed for consecutive patients presenting to a tertiary stone clinic with acute stone episodes between November 2007 and December 2008, and had at least 2 years of follow-up. Number and modality of imaging studies were collected. Effective radiation exposure (ERE) doses were calculated from the dose length product values reported with each computed tomography (CT) scan. RESULTS There were 72 males and 32 females with a mean age of 49 years (range 21-78). Patients underwent an average 1.8 (range 0-5) and 0.7 (range 0-2) plain radiographs, 0.82 (range 0-4) and 0.15 (range 0-2) CTs, 0.09 (range 0-1) and 0.03 (range 0-1) intravenous urograms, and 0.3 (range 0-1) and 0.6 (range 0-2) ultrasounds (US) during the first and second years, respectively (all P < .05). The average calculated ERE dose per CT scan was 23.16 mSv (range 4.94-72.77). The calculated mean ERE dose per patient significantly decreased from 29.29 mSv (range 1.7-77.27) in the first year to 8.04 mSv (range 1.4-24.72) in the second year (P < .01). This was because of significantly fewer CT scans and significantly more US imaging during the second year (P < .05). Although 18 (17.3%) patients exceeded 50 mSv during the first year, none exceeded this threshold during the second year. The mean ERE dose did not correlate with stone location, patient age, and sex. CONCLUSION The calculated mean ERE dose significantly decreased during the second year of follow-up in patients with urolithiasis because of significantly higher use of US. UROLOGY 79: 43-47, 2012. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据