Caroline Hollingsworth1, Donald P Frush, Mark Cross, Javier Lucaya. 1. Department of Radiology, Box 3808, Division of Pediatric Radiology, Rm. 1905A, McGovern-Davison Children's Health Center, Duke University Medical Center, Erwin Road, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the current practice of helical CT of the body in pediatric patients through a survey of members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey consisted of 53 questions addressing demographics; oral and IV contrast media administration; and age-based (age groups, 0-4, 5-8, 9-12, and 13-16 years) scanning parameters, including tube current, kilovoltage, slice thickness, and pitch. Respondents accessed the Web-based survey via a uniform resource locator link included in an e-mail to the members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology automatically sent every week for three weeks. Survey results were automatically tabulated. RESULTS: Most (83%) respondents were based in children's or university hospitals at the time of the survey. Virtually all (99%) used nonionic IV contrast material. For body scanning, 21-32% used less than 2.0 mL/kg of body weight; we found the percentage of respondents who used power injection to be approximately equal to the percentage of those who used manual injection (47%). Age-based adjustments are made; however, 11-26% of CT examinations of children younger than 9 years are performed using more than 150 mA. A notable finding was that 20-25% of respondents did not know specific parameters used for their examinations. CONCLUSION: Although pediatric radiologists do practice age-adjusted helical CT, variable scanning techniques are used, potentially delivering high doses of radiation. Information on current practices in helical CT of the body in children can serve as a foundation for future recommendations and investigations into helical CT in pediatric patients.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the current practice of helical CT of the body in pediatric patients through a survey of members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey consisted of 53 questions addressing demographics; oral and IV contrast media administration; and age-based (age groups, 0-4, 5-8, 9-12, and 13-16 years) scanning parameters, including tube current, kilovoltage, slice thickness, and pitch. Respondents accessed the Web-based survey via a uniform resource locator link included in an e-mail to the members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology automatically sent every week for three weeks. Survey results were automatically tabulated. RESULTS: Most (83%) respondents were based in children's or university hospitals at the time of the survey. Virtually all (99%) used nonionic IV contrast material. For body scanning, 21-32% used less than 2.0 mL/kg of body weight; we found the percentage of respondents who used power injection to be approximately equal to the percentage of those who used manual injection (47%). Age-based adjustments are made; however, 11-26% of CT examinations of children younger than 9 years are performed using more than 150 mA. A notable finding was that 20-25% of respondents did not know specific parameters used for their examinations. CONCLUSION: Although pediatric radiologists do practice age-adjusted helical CT, variable scanning techniques are used, potentially delivering high doses of radiation. Information on current practices in helical CT of the body in children can serve as a foundation for future recommendations and investigations into helical CT in pediatric patients.
Authors: Karen E Thomas; June E Parnell-Parmley; Salwa Haidar; Rahim Moineddin; Ellen Charkot; Guila BenDavid; Connie Krajewski Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2006-05-13
Authors: K P Kim; A Berrington de González; M S Pearce; J A Salotti; L Parker; K McHugh; A W Craft; C Lee Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Francis R Verdun; Daniel Gutierrez; John Paul Vader; Abbas Aroua; Leonor Trinidad Alamo-Maestre; François Bochud; François Gudinchet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315