Congress:
EuroSafe Imaging 2017
Keywords:
Dosimetric comparison, Radiation safety, Cystography / Uretrography, Barium enema, Fluoroscopy, Urinary Tract / Bladder, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Abdomen, Action 2 - Clinical diagnostic reference levels (DRLs), Action 3 - Optimisation, diagnostic reference levels, image quality, Quality assurance
Authors:
A. Magistrelli, E. Genovese, V. Cannatà, M. Cirillo, P. SCHINGO, P. Toma
DOI:
10.1594/esi2017/ESI-0043
Background/Introduction
Fluoroscopic examinations can be associated with high radiation dose,
with less standardisation of screening technique than plain radiography.
It is thus expected that there will be a great variation in the dose delivered by different operators for the same radiological examination and patients of the same age,
gender,
body mass and thickness.
In 1996,
the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) introduced Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRL) standardised at the 75th percentile of the imaging examination dose.
In 2001,
ICRP recommended the use of local DRL to achieve best practice and obtain optimum range of values for the specific medical imaging protocols so that the radiation doses to patients are as low as compatible with the clinical purpose.
Diagnostic reference levels (DRL) of procedures involving ionising radiation are important practical tools for optimising radiation doses delivered to patients and to identify cases where the levels of dose are unusually high.
Unfortunately there are some difficulties in comparing published data due to the lack of harmonisation regarding the classification or grouping of patients.
On the october 2015 ESR has proposed a draft to regulate the DRL estimation (PiDRL Guidelines).
The aim of this study is to review our local DRL in pediatric fluoroscopy and to compare them to values proposed by PiDRL guidelines and recent international litterature.