Hannele Niiniviita1,2, Timo Kiljunen3, Minna Huuskonen4, Simo Teperi5, Jarmo Kulmala6. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, 20520, Turku, Finland. hannele.niiniviita@tyks.fi. 2. Medical Imaging Center of Southwest Finland, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, 20521, Turku, Finland. hannele.niiniviita@tyks.fi. 3. Docrates Cancer Center, Saukonpaadenranta 2, 00180, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Radiology, Satakunta Central Hospital, Sairaalantie 3, 28500, Pori, Finland. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 10, 20520, Turku, Finland. 6. Department of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As the number of pediatric computed tomography (CT) imaging is increasing, there is a need for real-time radiation dose monitoring and evaluation of the imaging protocols. The aim of this study was to present the imaging data, patient doses, and observations of pediatric and young adult trauma-and routine head CT and cervical spine CT collected by a dose monitoring software. METHODS: Patient age, study date, imaging parameters, and patient dose as volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) were collected from two emergency departments' CT scanners for 2-year period. The patients were divided into four age groups (0-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 years) for statistical analysis and effective dose determination. The 75th percentile doses were evaluated to be used as local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen trauma head, 318 routine head, and 592 trauma cervical spine CT studies were assessed. All mean CTDIvol values were statistically lower in hospital B (40.3 ± 12.3, 30.03 ± 11.1, and 6.9 ± 3.1 mGy, respectively) than in hospital A (53.0 ± 12.9, 43.2 ± 8.7, and 18.3 ± 7.3 mGy, respectively). Statistically significant differences were observed on scanning length between hospitals and between CTDIvol values when protocol was updated. The 75th percentiles of trauma cervical spine in hospital B can be used as local DRL. Non-optimized protocols were also revealed in hospital A. CONCLUSION: Dose monitoring software offers a valuable tool for evaluating the imaging practices and finding non-optimized protocols.
PURPOSE: As the number of pediatric computed tomography (CT) imaging is increasing, there is a need for real-time radiation dose monitoring and evaluation of the imaging protocols. The aim of this study was to present the imaging data, patient doses, and observations of pediatric and young adult trauma-and routine head CT and cervical spine CT collected by a dose monitoring software. METHODS:Patient age, study date, imaging parameters, and patient dose as volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) were collected from two emergency departments' CT scanners for 2-year period. The patients were divided into four age groups (0-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 years) for statistical analysis and effective dose determination. The 75th percentile doses were evaluated to be used as local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen trauma head, 318 routine head, and 592 trauma cervical spine CT studies were assessed. All mean CTDIvol values were statistically lower in hospital B (40.3 ± 12.3, 30.03 ± 11.1, and 6.9 ± 3.1 mGy, respectively) than in hospital A (53.0 ± 12.9, 43.2 ± 8.7, and 18.3 ± 7.3 mGy, respectively). Statistically significant differences were observed on scanning length between hospitals and between CTDIvol values when protocol was updated. The 75th percentiles of trauma cervical spine in hospital B can be used as local DRL. Non-optimized protocols were also revealed in hospital A. CONCLUSION: Dose monitoring software offers a valuable tool for evaluating the imaging practices and finding non-optimized protocols.
Authors: H Järvinen; R Seuri; M Kortesniemi; A Lajunen; E Hallinen; P Savikurki-Heikkilä; P Laarne; M Perhomaa; E Tyrväinen Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Marilyn J Goske; Keith J Strauss; Laura P Coombs; Keith E Mandel; Alexander J Towbin; David B Larson; Michael J Callahan; Kassa Darge; Daniel J Podberesky; Donald P Frush; Sjirk J Westra; Jeffrey S Prince Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21