Expansion of Typical Values for Paediatric Patients in Ireland and Comparison with Published DRLs - Experiences of a Single Institution.

ALARA Diagnostic reference levels Dose area product Paediatric Radiation protection

Journal

Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences
ISSN: 1876-7982
Titre abrégé: J Med Imaging Radiat Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101469694

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 May 2024
Historique:
received: 10 10 2023
revised: 16 04 2024
accepted: 22 04 2024
medline: 13 5 2024
pubmed: 13 5 2024
entrez: 12 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To reduce the risks involved with ionising radiation exposure, typical values (TVs) and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been established to help keep radiation doses 'as low as reasonably practicable. TVs/DRLs provide standardised radiation dose metrics that can be used for comparative purposes. However, for paediatrics, such values should consider the size of the child instead of their age. This study aimed to establish and compare paediatric TVs for chest, abdomen and pelvis radiography. Study methods followed processes for establishing paediatric DRLs as outlined by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). Kerma-area product (KAP) values, excluding rejected images, were retrospectively acquired from the study institution's Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS). Paediatric patients were categorised into the following weight-based groupings (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg) and stratified based on the examination that was performed (chest, abdomen, and pelvis), and where it was performed (the different X-ray rooms). Anonymised data were inputted into Microsoft Excel for analysis. Median and 3rd quartile KAP values were reported together with graphical illustrations. Data from 407 X-ray examinations were analysed. For the previously identified weight categories (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg), TVs for the chest were 0.10, 0.19, 0.37 and 0.53 dGy.cm TVs in this study follow established trends with patient weight and examination type and are comparable with published literature. Variations do exist between individual examination rooms and reasons are multifactorial. Given that age and size do not perfectly correlate further work should be undertaken around weight-based TVs/DRLs in the paediatric setting.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38735771
pii: S1939-8654(24)00117-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2024.04.014
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

101421

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Andrew Lyons (A)

Discipline of Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Ali Mohammed Ali (A)

Department of Medical Physics, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Kerbala, Karbala, Iraq.

Andrew England (A)

Discipline of Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. Electronic address: aengland@ucc.ie.

Niamh Moore (N)

Discipline of Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Rena Young (R)

Discipline of Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Brid Leamy (B)

Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.

Winnie Tam (W)

Department of Radiography, City, University of London, London, UK.

Paul Bezzina (P)

Department of Radiography, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.

Napapong Pongnapang (N)

Department of Radiological Technology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Mark F McEntee (MF)

Discipline of Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Classifications MeSH