2009
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2521080141
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Increased Radiation Dose to Overweight and Obese Patients from Radiographic Examinations

Abstract: Effective doses from radiographic examinations in the extremely obese can exceed 100 mSv from only a small number of abdominal examinations and should be minimized to the extent possible and monitored. Exponential dose increases for increased subcutaneous fat thicknesses can be reduced substantially by positioning the patient so that the thinnest fat layer (anterior or posterior) is closest to the image receptor. Increasing the tube voltage also reduces the dose-but to a much smaller extent.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
79
0
5

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
4
79
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The most commonly observed emerge around precise imaging itself, whereby decreased penetration of X-rays through high levels of subcutaneous fat, intra-abdominal fat deposition, and other obesity-related changes in soft tissue structures, can result in the need for repeat projections, the need to image in quadrants, higher recall incidences and increased biopsy rates. [6][7][8] On a more practical, everyday level, the manual handling of obese patients also has implications for clinical practice in a range of ways. Positioning such an individual so as to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2 effect diagnostically-satisfactory results can be awkward and time-consuming, sometimes requiring extra staff, multiple image receptors and particular attention to the patient's respiration and general comfort.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most commonly observed emerge around precise imaging itself, whereby decreased penetration of X-rays through high levels of subcutaneous fat, intra-abdominal fat deposition, and other obesity-related changes in soft tissue structures, can result in the need for repeat projections, the need to image in quadrants, higher recall incidences and increased biopsy rates. [6][7][8] On a more practical, everyday level, the manual handling of obese patients also has implications for clinical practice in a range of ways. Positioning such an individual so as to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2 effect diagnostically-satisfactory results can be awkward and time-consuming, sometimes requiring extra staff, multiple image receptors and particular attention to the patient's respiration and general comfort.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With this is mind, participants reported difficulties with positioning obese patients in plain radiography, with corollary impacts on image quality [3,17,18,21] , and that insufficient table weight limits and widths [5,6,15,22] , and detector sizes [3,6] , can adversely affect, or even outright prevent, examination. They also raised some more novel concerns relating to issues as apparently mundane (though hardly trivial) as available gown sizes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a a It should be noted that the absence of other core matters is an output of these issues being the focus of further papers emerging from the same original study. similar vein, Yanch et al [18] argue that beam attenuation, low image contrast, long exposure times and motion artefacts are also recurrent upshots of patient obesity in these realms. Using phantoms and subcutaneous adipose tissue to simulate patients when X-raying chests and abdomens, they conclude that to reduce the exponential dose increase, positioning the patient with the thinnest fat layer closest to the image receptor is most effective wherever the thinnest layer is (anterior or posterior).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The mean BMI, by gender, bordered pre-obese and obese.  Note: trending increase in body weight among the U.S. population paired with concern about cumulative dose trends (Yanch et al, 2009;Fazel et al, 2009) underscore the need to obtain accurate reference levels on radiation exposure, as such exposure will, in general, be higher for patients with greater body mass. 7.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%