Adult Computed Tomography examinations in Uganda: Towards determining the National Diagnostic Reference Levels

Abstract

Introduction Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs), typically set at the 75th percentile of the dose distribution from surveys conducted across a broad user base using a specified dose-measurement protocol, are recommended for radiological examinations. There is a need to develop and implement DRLs as a standardisation and optimisation tool for the radiological protection of patients at Computed Tomography (CT) facilities. Methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted in seven (7) different CT scan facilities in which participants were recruited by systematic random sampling. The study variables were dose length product (DLP) and volume-weighted CTDI (CTDIvol) for the radiation doses for head, chest, abdomen and lumbar spine CT examinations. The DRLs for CTDIvol and DLP were obtained by calculating the 3rd quartiles of the radiation doses per study site by anatomical region. The national diagnostic reference levels were determined by computation of DRLs using the 75th centile of the median values. Results A total of 574 patients were examined with an average age of 47.1 years. For CTDIvol estimates; there was a strong positive significant relationship between the CTDIvol and examination mAs (rs = 0.9017, p-value < 0.001), and reference mAs (rs = 0.0.7708, p-value < 0.001). For DLP estimates; there was a moderate positive significant relationships between DLP and total mAs (rs = 0.6812, p-value < 0.001), reference mAs (rs = 0.5493, p-value < 0.001). The DRLs were as follows; for head CT scan – the average median CTDIvol was 56.02 mGy and the DLP was 1260.3 mGy.cm; for Chest CT, the CTDI volume was 7.82 mGy and the DLP was 377.0 mGy.cm; for the abdomen CT, the CTDI volume 12.54 mGy and DLP 1418.3 mGy.cm and for the lumbar spine 19.48 mGy and the DLP was 843 mGy.cm, respectively. Conclusion This study confirmed the need to optimize the CT scan parameters in order to lower the national DRLs. This can be achieved by extensive training of all the CT scan radiographers on optimizing the CT scan acquisition parameters. Continuous dose audits are also advised with new equipment or after every three years to ensure that values out of range are either justified or further investigated.

Application of Medical Image Navigation Technology in Minimally Invasive Puncture Robot

“…Ultrasonic imaging is radiation free, simple to operate, provides real-time results, and is low cost [ 20 ]. CT imaging is fast and widely used to diagnose diseases of the skeletal system, chest, abdomen [ 21 , 22 ], etc. The imaging process of MRI is radiation free and non-invasive to the human body, and the imaging effect on soft tissues, bone marrow, joints, and other parts is better than CT [ 23 , 24 ].…”

A Comparison of the Mean CTDIvol and DLP Values for Adult Abdominal CT Examination for MTRH, Eldoret Hospital, St. Luke’s Hospital and Mediheal Hospital: A Retrospective Study

“…Yurt et al(2020) suggests that technical capacity of radiologists in public and private hospitals also account for variations in mean CTDIvol and DLPs. Technical capacity determines how providers or clinical staff chose to set the machine technical parameters which affect dose levels 10,28 Abba and Ibrahim (2018) reported higher values of CTDIvol and DLPs in public health facilities as opposed to private health facilities. Similarly, Erem et al, (2022) found out that public health facilities had higher mean values for CTDIvol and DLPs when compared to private health facilities.…”

“…Technical capacity determines how providers or clinical staff chose to set the machine technical parameters which affect dose levels 10,28 Abba and Ibrahim (2018) reported higher values of CTDIvol and DLPs in public health facilities as opposed to private health facilities. Similarly, Erem et al, (2022) found out that public health facilities had higher mean values for CTDIvol and DLPs when compared to private health facilities. The authors explained that in public health facilities there is the likelihood of having an aging machine or poorly maintained scanner that may yield values outside the accepted standards for effective radiation dose optimization.…”