| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Genitourinary Imaging |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (R.D.N., P.F.J., S.G.S.) and Health Physics and Radiopharmacology (A.R.S.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115. Received February 7, 2003; revision requested April 23; final revision received November 7; accepted November 20. Address correspondence to R.D.N. (e-mail: nawfel@bwh.harvard.edu).
PURPOSE: To measure and compare patient radiation dose from computed tomographic (CT) urography and conventional urography and to compare these doses with dose estimates determined from phantom measurements.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient skin doses were determined by placing a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) strip (six TLD chips) on the abdomen of eight patients examined with CT urography and 11 patients examined with conventional urography. CT urography group consisted of two women and six men (mean age, 55.5 years), and conventional urography group consisted of six women and five men (mean age, 58.9 years). CT urography protocol included three volumetric acquisitions of the abdomen and pelvis. Conventional urography protocol consisted of acquisition of several images involving full nephrotomography and oblique projections. Mean and SD of measured patient doses were compared with corresponding calculated doses and with dose measured on a Lucite pelvic-torso phantom. Correlation coefficient (R2) was calculated to compare measured and calculated skin doses for conventional urography examination, and two-tailed P value significance test was used to evaluate variation in effective dose with patient size. Radiation risk was calculated from effective dose estimates.
RESULTS: Mean patient skin doses for CT urography measured with TLD strips and calculated from phantom data (CT dose index) were 56.3 mGy ± 11.5 and 54.6 mGy ± 4.1, respectively. Mean patient skin doses for conventional urography measured with TLD strips and calculated as entrance skin dose were 151 mGy ± 90 and 145 mGy ± 76, respectively. Correlation coefficient between measured and calculated skin doses for conventional urography examinations was 0.95. Mean effective dose estimates for CT urography and conventional urography were 14.8 mSv ± 90.0 and 9.7 mSv ± 3.0, respectively. Mean effective doses estimated for the pelvic-torso phantom were 15.9 mSv (CT urography) and 7.8 mSv (conventional urography).
CONCLUSION: Standard protocol for CT urography led to higher mean effective dose, approximately 1.5 times the radiation risk for conventional urography. Patient dose estimates should be taken into consideration when imaging protocols are established for CT urography.
© RSNA, 2004
Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), radiation exposure, 80.122, 80.1211 • Dosimetry, 80.122, 80.1211 • Radiations, exposure to patients and personnel, 80.122, 80.1211 • Radiations, measurement, 80.122, 80.1211 • Urography, 80.122, 80.1211
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. G. Silverman, J. R. Leyendecker, and E. S. Amis Jr What Is the Current Role of CT Urography and MR Urography in the Evaluation of the Urinary Tract? Radiology, February 1, 2009; 250(2): 309 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G BEDETTI, N BOTTO, M G ANDREASSI, C TRAINO, E VANO, and E PICANO Cumulative patient effective dose in cardiology Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2008; 81(969): 699 - 705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A O'Keeffe, S. McNally, and M. T Keogan Investigating painless haematuria BMJ, July 9, 2008; 337(jul09_3): a260 - a260. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J Richenberg Haematuria Imaging, March 1, 2008; 20(1): 57 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. K. Paulson, C. Weaver, L. M. Ho, L. Martin, J. Li, J. Darsie, and D. P. Frush Conventional and Reduced Radiation Dose of 16-MDCT for Detection of Nephrolithiasis and Ureterolithiasis Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2008; 190(1): 151 - 157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Hosseinzadeh Invited Commentary RadioGraphics, January 1, 2008; 28(1): 46 - 48. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. C. Chow, S. W. Kwan, E. W. Olcott, and G. Sommer Split-Bolus MDCT Urography with Synchronous Nephrographic and Excretory Phase Enhancement Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2007; 189(2): 314 - 322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Jinzaki, A. Tanimoto, H. Shinmoto, Y. Horiguchi, K. Sato, S. Kuribayashi, and S. G. Silverman Detection of Bladder Tumors with Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MDCT Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 913 - 918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. N. Eikefjord, F. Thorsen, and J. Rorvik Comparison of Effective Radiation Doses in Patients Undergoing Unenhanced MDCT and Excretory Urography for Acute Flank Pain Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 934 - 939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. M. Burger, K. J. Murphy, L. C. Jordan, R. J. Tamargo, and P. Gailloud Safety of Cerebral Digital Subtraction Angiography in Children: Complication Rate Analysis in 241 Consecutive Diagnostic Angiograms Stroke, October 1, 2006; 37(10): 2535 - 2539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. G. Silverman, S. A. Akbar, K. J. Mortele, K. Tuncali, J. G. Bhagwat, and J. L. Seifter Multi-Detector Row CT Urography of Normal Urinary Collecting System: Furosemide versus Saline as Adjunct to Contrast Medium Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 749 - 755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
