AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arch, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Frush, D. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arch, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Frush, D. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.2989
AJR 2008; 191:611-617
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Pediatric Body MDCT: A 5-Year Follow-Up Survey of Scanning Parameters Used by Pediatric Radiologists

Michael E. Arch1 and Donald P. Frush1

1 Both authors: Department of Radiology, Division of Pediatric Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 1905 McGovern-Davison Children's Health Center, Box 3808 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how pediatric body MDCT scanning parameters (i.e., the principal determinants of radiation dose) have changed since a prior survey conducted in 2001.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The survey used in this study consisted of 27 questions addressing practice setting; equipment; and scanning parameters including kilovoltage, tube current, and pitch. Members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) received an email with a link to the Web-based survey. Respondents were asked to complete only one survey to represent their practice and indicate the number of pediatric radiologists their response represented.

RESULTS. Sixty-one responses representing 337 pediatric radiologists were received. Eighty-four percent of respondents practice in a university or children's hospital. No respondents reported using a peak kilovoltage setting of higher than 120 kVp for routine chest or abdomen scans. Those using 110 kVp or less increased from 4% to 48% for chest CT and from 1% to 32% for abdominal CT (p < 0.001). Weight-based adjustments in tube current are used by 98% of respondents. Tube current tends to increase with a patient's age or weight, with most pediatric body imaging examinations being performed with a tube current of less than 150 mA. The mean tube current used across all age groups decreased between 31 and 61 mA (p < 0.001), with the largest percentage decreases in patients in the 0–4 years age group.

CONCLUSION. Since 2001, the peak kilovoltage and tube current settings, two principal parameters determining radiation dose, used by SPR members have decreased significantly for pediatric body MDCT. It is a reasonable assumption that these changes are due to efforts to increase awareness about the risks of radiation.

Keywords: ALARA principle • MDCT • pediatric imaging • radiation safety • scanning parameters


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNMHome page
F. H. Fahey
Dosimetry of Pediatric PET/CT
J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2009; 50(9): 1483 - 1491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. Tack and P. A. Gevenois
Body MDCT at 140 kV
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2009; 192(3): W139 - W140.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. E. Arch and D. P. Frush
Reply
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2009; 192(3): W142 - W142.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.