Summer L Kaplan1,2, Dennise Magill3, Marc A Felice3, J Christopher Edgar4,5, Sudha A Anupindi4,5, Xiaowei Zhu4,5. 1. Department of Radiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 34th Street and Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. kaplans2@email.chop.edu. 2. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. kaplans2@email.chop.edu. 3. Environmental Health and Radiation Safety, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 34th Street and Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 5. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both air and radiopaque liquid contrast are used to reduce ileocolic intussusception under fluoroscopy. Some suggest air lowers radiation dose due to shorter procedure times. However, air enema likely lowers radiation dose regardless of fluoroscopy time due to less density over the automatic exposure control cells. OBJECTIVES: We test the hypothesis that air enema reduction of ileocolic intussusception results in lower radiation dose than liquid contrast enema independent of fluoroscopy time. We describe a role for automatic exposure control in this dose difference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated air and liquid intussusception reductions performed on a single digital fluoroscopic unit during a 26-month period. We compared patient age, weight, gender, exam time of day and year, performing radiologist(s), radiographic image acquisitions, grid and magnification use, fluoroscopy time and dose area product. We compared categorical and continuous variables statistically using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. RESULTS: The mean dose area product was 2.7-fold lower for air enema, 1.3 ± 0.9 dGy·cm2, than for liquid, 3.5 ± 2.5 dGy·cm2 (P<0.005). The mean fluoroscopy time was similar between techniques. The mean dose area product/min was 2.3-fold lower for air, 0.6 ± 0.2 dGy·cm2/min, than for liquid, 1.4 ± 0.5 dGy·cm2/min (P<0.001). No group differences were identified in other measured dose parameters. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopic intussusception reduction using air enema uses less than half the radiation dose of liquid contrast enema. Dose savings are independent of fluoroscopy time and are likely due to automatic exposure control interaction.
BACKGROUND: Both air and radiopaque liquid contrast are used to reduce ileocolic intussusception under fluoroscopy. Some suggest air lowers radiation dose due to shorter procedure times. However, air enema likely lowers radiation dose regardless of fluoroscopy time due to less density over the automatic exposure control cells. OBJECTIVES: We test the hypothesis that air enema reduction of ileocolic intussusception results in lower radiation dose than liquid contrast enema independent of fluoroscopy time. We describe a role for automatic exposure control in this dose difference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated air and liquid intussusception reductions performed on a single digital fluoroscopic unit during a 26-month period. We compared patient age, weight, gender, exam time of day and year, performing radiologist(s), radiographic image acquisitions, grid and magnification use, fluoroscopy time and dose area product. We compared categorical and continuous variables statistically using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. RESULTS: The mean dose area product was 2.7-fold lower for air enema, 1.3 ± 0.9 dGy·cm2, than for liquid, 3.5 ± 2.5 dGy·cm2 (P<0.005). The mean fluoroscopy time was similar between techniques. The mean dose area product/min was 2.3-fold lower for air, 0.6 ± 0.2 dGy·cm2/min, than for liquid, 1.4 ± 0.5 dGy·cm2/min (P<0.001). No group differences were identified in other measured dose parameters. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopic intussusception reduction using air enema uses less than half the radiation dose of liquid contrast enema. Dose savings are independent of fluoroscopy time and are likely due to automatic exposure control interaction.
Authors: Alicia Anne Henderson; Sudha A Anupindi; Sabah Servaes; Richard I Markowitz; Paul L Aronson; Robert J McLoughlin; Rakesh D Mistry Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Farahnaz Golriz; Christopher I Cassady; Brandy Bales; Christi Herrejon; M John Hicks; Wei Zhang; Robert C Orth; R Paul Guillerman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-05-24
Authors: Tae Yeon Jeon; Sung-Hoon Moon; Hae Won Kim; Kyunga Kim; So-Young Yoo; Yon Ho Choe; Sanghoon Lee; Jeong-Meen Seo; Ji Hye Kim Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-07
Authors: Monica Miranda-Schaeubinger; Einat Blumfield; Govind B Chavhan; Amy B Farkas; Aparna Joshi; Shawn E Kamps; Summer L Kaplan; Marla B K Sammer; Elizabeth Silvestro; A Luana Stanescu; Raymond W Sze; Danielle M Zerr; Tushar Chandra; Emily A Edwards; Naeem Khan; Eva I Rubio; Chido D Vera; Ramesh S Iyer Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2020-07-07