Helical CT of the Body: a Survey of Techniques Used for Pediatric Patients
Overview
Affiliations
Objective: Our purpose was to assess the current practice of helical CT of the body in pediatric patients through a survey of members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology.
Materials And Methods: The survey consisted of 53 questions addressing demographics; oral and IV contrast media administration; and age-based (age groups, 0-4, 5-8, 9-12, and 13-16 years) scanning parameters, including tube current, kilovoltage, slice thickness, and pitch. Respondents accessed the Web-based survey via a uniform resource locator link included in an e-mail to the members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology automatically sent every week for three weeks. Survey results were automatically tabulated.
Results: Most (83%) respondents were based in children's or university hospitals at the time of the survey. Virtually all (99%) used nonionic IV contrast material. For body scanning, 21-32% used less than 2.0 mL/kg of body weight; we found the percentage of respondents who used power injection to be approximately equal to the percentage of those who used manual injection (47%). Age-based adjustments are made; however, 11-26% of CT examinations of children younger than 9 years are performed using more than 150 mA. A notable finding was that 20-25% of respondents did not know specific parameters used for their examinations.
Conclusion: Although pediatric radiologists do practice age-adjusted helical CT, variable scanning techniques are used, potentially delivering high doses of radiation. Information on current practices in helical CT of the body in children can serve as a foundation for future recommendations and investigations into helical CT in pediatric patients.
Radiation dose evaluation of pediatric patients in CT brain examination: multi-center study.
Eddy F, Ngano S, Jerve F, Serge A Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):4663.
PMID: 33633210 PMC: 7907073. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84078-z.
Pediatric CT radiation exposure: where we were, and where we are now.
Goodman T, Mustafa A, Rowe E Pediatr Radiol. 2019; 49(4):469-478.
PMID: 30923878 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-018-4281-y.
Lee C, Morton L, Berrington de Gonzalez A Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2017; 178(1):116-121.
PMID: 28981878 PMC: 5927330. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncx084.
Variation in the documentation of findings in pediatric voiding cystourethrogram.
Schaeffer A, Sood S, Logvinenko T, Rivera-Castro G, Rosoklija I, Chow J Pediatr Radiol. 2014; 44(12):1548-56.
PMID: 24859357 PMC: 4237646. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-014-3028-7.
Foley S, Evanoff M, Rainford L Insights Imaging. 2013; 4(5):637-46.
PMID: 24006206 PMC: 3781242. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-013-0282-4.