Multiphase abdomen-pelvis CT in women of childbearing potential (WOCBP)

Naemi, Huda Al; Aly, Antar; Kharita, M.H.; Hilli, Shatha Al; Obadli, Amal Al; Singh, Ramandeep; Rehani, Madan M.; Kalra, Mannudeep K.

doi:10.1097/md.0000000000018485

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The amount of radiation exposure is dependent on the CT imaging protocol (e.g., the number of slices in a given area). However, location also matters, a CT scan with a thickness of 10 mm for the head would require >100 scans to equal a cumulative fetal toxic radiation dose, whereas a CT abdomen/pelvis with intravenous contrast followed by delayed imaging or a CT angiography scan followed by venous phase (e.g., multiphase imaging) would each have double the radiation exposure compared to a single phase scan and would surpass the toxic fetal dose of radiation (Table 7 ) [ 3 , 22 – 25 ]. Due to the potential radiation risk to the fetus from CT imaging, PTPs in clinical practice may be evaluated differently than non-pregnant patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant variation in computed tomography imaging of pregnant trauma patients: a retrospective multicenter study

Lucas,

Tay-Lasso,

Zezoff

et al. 2023

Emerg Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Following motor vehicle collisions (MVCs), patients often undergo extensive computed tomography (CT) imaging. However, pregnant trauma patients (PTPs) represent a unique population where the risk of fetal radiation may supersede the benefits of liberal CT imaging. This study sought to evaluate imaging practices for PTPs, hypothesizing variability in CT imaging among trauma centers. If demonstrated, this might suggest the need to develop specific guidelines to standardize practice. Methods A multicenter retrospective study (2016–2021) was performed at 12 Level-I/II trauma centers. Adult (≥18 years old) PTPs involved in MVCs were included, with no patients excluded. The primary outcome was the frequency of CT. Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables, and ANOVA was used to compare the means of normally distributed continuous variables. Results A total of 729 PTPs sustained MVCs (73% at high speed of ≥ 25 miles per hour). Most patients were mildly injured but a small variation of injury severity score (range 1.1–4.6, p < 0.001) among centers was observed. There was a variation of imaging rates for CT head (range 11.8–62.5%, p < 0.001), cervical spine (11.8–75%, p < 0.001), chest (4.4–50.2%, p < 0.001), and abdomen/pelvis (0–57.3%, p < 0.001). In high-speed MVCs, there was variation for CT head (12.5–64.3%, p < 0.001), cervical spine (16.7–75%, p < 0.001), chest (5.9–83.3%, p < 0.001), and abdomen/pelvis (0–60%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality (0–2.9%, p =0.19). Conclusion Significant variability of CT imaging in PTPs after MVCs was demonstrated across 12 trauma centers, supporting the need for standardization of CT imaging for PTPs to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure while ensuring optimal injury identification is achieved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant variation in computed tomography imaging of pregnant trauma patients: a retrospective multicenter study

Lucas,

Tay-Lasso,

Zezoff

et al. 2023

Emerg Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the extremities have a low risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis, whereas solid organs, including the lungs, and particularly glandular organs, such as the thyroid and mammary glands, have a much higher risk (45). the same exposed body part may even receive varying radiation doses depending on the effective dose when undergoing a Ct scan (53)(54)(55). to reduce the harm of radiation to the human body, the dose in each X-ray examination needs to be minimized.…”

Section: Enhancing Medical Knowledge and Education Regarding Radiatio...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for reducing exposure to medical X‑ray irradiation (Review)

Shi

Sun

2022

Med Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing frequency of X-ray examinations in clinical medicine, public concern regarding the harm caused by exposure to X-ray radiation is also increasing. However, some physicians are not completely aware of the dangers of exposure to X-ray irradiation. Individuals specialized in this field, including physicians, have a better understanding of these dangers, which limits the use of X-rays in medicine. the present study aimed to address strategies for reducing the harm caused by exposure to medical X-rays and increase public awareness regarding X-ray radiation. through a literature search and review, combined with the current status of clinical X-ray examination and the authors' professional experience, the present study highlights the importance of reducing X-ray exposure, and proposes several specific recommendations and measures for reducing the frequency or dose of X-ray irradiation. On the whole, the finding discussed in the present review suggest the minimal use of medical X-ray examinations and that alternative tests should be selected whenever possible. When medical X-ray screening and treatments are necessary, the risk-benefit ratio should be assessed, possibly aiming to achieve avoidable exposure. Further attention should be paid to protect sensitive glands and reduce the risks in children.

show abstract