Purpose or learning objective
In the last decades, Computed Tomography (CT) has undergone through significant technological changes that have allowed a circumstantial improvement in quality, acuity, and reliability and, consequently, have revolutionized the diagnosis of many pathologies1,2,3 .
The increased resource to radiodiagnostic modalities, in which CT largely contributes, has led to an increased patient’s exposure to ionizing radiation and, therefore, a greater awareness and focus on patient safety and consequent search for radiographer’s practice performance optimization1,3 .
The BSS Directive point to three major principles concerning patient’s dose...
Methods or background
For the accomplishment of this study, CT dose descriptors such as mAs, kVp, Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI) and Dose Length Product (DLP) were registered for CT examinations of the brain, face, chest, spine, abdomen and pelvis, through the examination of the file dose protocol grouped into 12 different clinical indications and using a sample of 20 patients per each clinical indication. A final total of 240 examinations were considered.
For the anatomical region of the brain the clinical indications defined were stroke, trauma, and...
Results or findings
The DRLs established for the brain CT examination with clinical indication of trauma, stroke and vascular pathology were 884 mGy.cm; 884 mGy.cm; 1772.50 mGy.cm, respectively for the CT-Face examination (trauma) the DRL obtained was 410 mGy.cm, for the CT-Cervical, Dorsal and Lumbar Spine examinations (trauma) were 410 mGy.cm, 677 mGy.cm, 577.3 mGy.cm, respectively. For the chest examination the DRLs obtained were 383.0 mGy.cm for pulmonary embolism and 490 for neoplasm. For the abdominopelvic CT examinations for urinary tract pathology and colon pathology were 1305,5 mGy.cm...
Conclusion
It was concluded that there was a great variation in the results obtained within the same exam, which leads to the conclusion that the DRLs should be suitable for the clinical indication and not just for an anatomical region.
References
1. Power, S. P., Moloney, F., Twomey, M., James, K., O’Connor, O. J., & Maher, M. M. (2016). Computed tomography and patient risk: Facts, perceptions and uncertainties.World Journal of Radiology,8(12), 902.https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i12.902
2. Habib Geryes, B., Hornbeck, A., Jarrige, V., Pierrat, N., Ducou Le Pointe, H., & Dreuil, S. (2019). Patient dose evaluation in computed tomography: A French national study based on clinical indications.Physica Medica,61(March), 18–27.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.04.004
3. Tsapaki, V., Damilakis, J., Paulo, G., Schegerer, A. A., Repussard, J., Jaschke, W., & Frija, G. (2021).CT diagnostic reference...
Personal information and conflict of interest
R. Marques:
Nothing to disclose
S. I. Rodrigues:
Nothing to disclose
A. F. C. L. Abrantes:
Nothing to disclose
L. P. V. Ribeiro:
Nothing to disclose
K. B. Azevedo:
Nothing to disclose
R. P. P. Almeida:
Nothing to disclose
B. Vicente:
Nothing to disclose
