» Articles » PMID: 32963506

5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful

Overview
Journal Dose Response
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2020 Sep 23
PMID 32963506
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Radiographic imaging for scoliosis screening, diagnosis, treatment, and management is the gold standard assessment tool. Scoliosis patients receive many repeat radiographs, typically 10-25 and as many as 40-50, equating to a maximum 50 mGy of cumulative exposure. It is argued this amount of radiation exposure is not carcinogenic to scoliosis patients for 5 main reasons: 1. Estimated theoretical cumulative effective doses remain below the carcinogenic dose threshold; 2. Scoliosis patient x-rays are delivered in serial exposures and therefore, mitigate any potential cumulative effect; 3. Linear no-threshold cancer risk estimates from scoliosis patient cohorts are flawed due to faulty science; 4. Standardized incidence/mortality ratios demonstrating increased cancers from aged scoliosis cohorts are confounded by the effects of the disease entity itself making it impossible to claim cause and effect resulting from low-dose radiation exposures from spinal imaging; 5. Children are not more susceptible to radiation damage than adults. Radiophobia concerns from patients, parents, and doctors over repeat imaging for scoliosis treatment and management is not justified; it adds unnecessary anxiety to the patient (and their parents) and interferes with optimal medical management. X-rays taken in the evidence-based management of scoliosis should be taken without hesitation or concern about negligible radiation exposures.

Citing Articles

The Prevalence of Cancer in Dutch Female Patients with Idiopathic Scoliosis Compared with the General Population.

Heijboer R, Heemskerk J, Vorrink S, Kempen D J Clin Med. 2024; 13(9).

PMID: 38731145 PMC: 11084711. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092616.


Re-establishing the cervical lordosis after whiplash: a Chiropractic Biophysics spinal corrective care methods pre-auto injury and post-auto injury case report with follow-up.

Norton T, Oakley P, Harrison D J Phys Ther Sci. 2023; 35(3):270-275.

PMID: 36866005 PMC: 9974326. DOI: 10.1589/jpts.35.270.


Retrospective Analysis of FED Method Treatment Results in 11-17-Year-Old Children with Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Trzcinska S, Koszela K Children (Basel). 2022; 9(10).

PMID: 36291449 PMC: 9600052. DOI: 10.3390/children9101513.


Analysis of Posture Parameters in Patients with Idiopathic Scoliosis with the Use of 3D Ultrasound Diagnostics-Preliminary Results.

Trzcinska S, Kuszewski M, Koszela K Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(8).

PMID: 35457615 PMC: 9025888. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084750.


Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?.

Oakley P, Harrison D Dose Response. 2021; 19(1):1559325821995653.

PMID: 33746654 PMC: 7903835. DOI: 10.1177/1559325821995653.


References
1.
Miglioretti D, Johnson E, Williams A, Greenlee R, Weinmann S, Solberg L . The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 2013; 167(8):700-7. PMC: 3936795. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.311. View

2.
Schulze-Rath R, Hammer G, Blettner M . Are pre- or postnatal diagnostic X-rays a risk factor for childhood cancer? A systematic review. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2008; 47(3):301-12. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-008-0171-2. View

3.
Calabrese E, Dhawan G, Kapoor R, Kozumbo W . Radiotherapy treatment of human inflammatory diseases and conditions: Optimal dose. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2019; 38(8):888-898. DOI: 10.1177/0960327119846925. View

4.
Angelidis G, Tsougos I, Valotassiou V, Georgoulias P . Low-dose radiation cancer risk hypothesis may lead to 'radiophobia'-driven imaging avoidance?. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018; 27(3):1050. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-018-1354-0. View

5.
Kojima S, Thukimoto M, Cuttler J, Inoguchi K, Ootaki T, Shimura N . Recovery From Rheumatoid Arthritis Following 15 Months of Therapy With Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: A Case Report. Dose Response. 2018; 16(3):1559325818784719. PMC: 6043934. DOI: 10.1177/1559325818784719. View