AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Hollingsworth, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hurwitz, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hollingsworth, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hurwitz, L. M.
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?

Pediatric Cardiac-Gated CT Angiography: Assessment of Radiation Dose

Caroline L. Hollingsworth1, Terry T. Yoshizumi1,2, Donald P. Frush1, Frandics P. Chan3, Greta Toncheva2, Giao Nguyen2, Carolyn R. Lowry1 and Lynne M. Hurwitz1

1 Department of Radiology, Division of Pediatric Radiology, 1905 McGovern-Davison Children's Health Center, Box 3803, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710.
2 Division of Radiation Safety, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
3 Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA.


Figure 1
View larger version (87K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 —Posterior view of anthropomorphic phantom of 5-year-old child depicts axial slices that contain tissue-equivalent anatomic sites labeled 1–17, LL = left and RR = right.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (140K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2 —Anthropomorphic phantom of 5-year-old child positioned supine in CT gantry with metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) system and heart rate simulator.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3 —Organ doses were calculated using summed averages of three simulated scans for each protocol. Effective dose was determined using ICRP 60 (International Commission on Radiological Protection) guidelines [39]. BM = bone marrow.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4 —Total effective dose was determined using ICRP 60 (International Commission on Radiological Protection) guidelines [39] and using doses from average of three scans for each protocol and timing bolus.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 5 —Effective dose calculated from dose–length product (DLP) (white) on CT console was compared with effective dose calculated from ICRP 60 (International Commission on Radiological Protection) guidelines (black) for four diagnostic protocols. In all instances, effective dose calculated from DLP was 9.7% to 17.2% higher. Note that only effective doses for diagnostic runs are depicted in graph.

 

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?



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.