García EA, González VC

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: s88-93
PDF size: 215.79 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, tomographic studies are considered almost routine due to their wide availability and diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, even through the ionizing radiation emitted by this imaging method is deemed low, their usage must be responsible and attached to good practice to avoid overexposure. This article was designed to know the radiation dose to which patients are exposed during CT scans performed by resident physicians in their training and compare the effective doses obtained with those recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The effective doses of 419 tomographic studies of different body areas practiced by resident physicians with a General Electric scanner Lightspeed Ultra 16 beams were calculated. The imaging studies were performed on a population ranging between one and 102 years of age, with an average of 52.7 years. The values of the effective doses were surpassed in 25.7% of the studies, with an average of 3.1 mSv above the recommendations of the international guidelines. The highest rate of overexposure was observed in contrast cranial studies. Radiologist physicians and technologists must improve the technique according to the principles of radiation safety to diminish stochastic risks, raising awareness of radiation exposure for a responsible usage of diagnostic CT scans.

REFERENCES

1. Haaga JR. Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177: 289-291.

2. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169 (22): 2078-2086.

3. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, Birnbaum SB, Brateman LF, Hevezi JM et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007; 4 (5): 272-284.

4. Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation-induced cancer risks at low dose among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000; 154: 178-186.

5. Brenner D, Hall E. Computed tomography –an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357 (22): 2277-2284.

6. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-229-SSA1-2002 Salud Ambiental.

7. CRP, 1991. Annuals limits on intake of radionuclides by workers based on the 1990 recommendations. ICRP Publication 61. Ann. ICRP 21 (4).

8. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Diagnosis CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose an possible risks. Radiology. 2004; 231 (2): 393-398.

9. Berrington de Gonzalez A et al. Tracking radiation exposure from medical diagnostic procedures: workshop reports. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169 (22): 2071-2077.

10. Calzado A. El índice de dosis de tomografía computarizada. Definiciones, medidas y magnitudes asociadas. Boletín SEFM. 6-1997.

11. Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission X ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 1981; 8: 488-495.

12. Mendizábal-Méndez AL. Radiación ionizante en tomografía computada: un tema de reflexión. Anales de Radiología México. 2012; 2: 90-97.

13. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Geleijns J et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography.

14. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT: report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. College Park, MD American Association of Physicists in Medicine 2008; AAPM report 96.

15. Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177: 285-287.