Review: With great interest we have read the paper “Pregnancy Screening before Diagnostic Radiography in Emergency Department; an Educational Review” by A.I. Abushouk et al. (1). We agree with the authors that unnecessary fetal radiation exposure should be avoided and that pregnancy screening can be a means to accomplish this. However, in their paper the authors suggest in several instances that radiological imaging during pregnancy can lead to teratogenic effects. In the Abstract it is stated: “Radiation exposure during pregnancy may have serious teratogenic effects to the fetus. Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against these effects.”, and in the Introduction: “Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against radiation teratogenic effects.” We strongly disagree with these statements: common radiological imaging will usually not give rise to fetal radiation doses high enough to lead to teratogenesis. The statements in the paper may lead to unnecessary worrying of pregnant women and it may discourage themfrom undergoing medically necessary radiological examinations.
DOCUMENT
Medical imaging practice changed dramatically with the introduction of digital imaging. Although digital imaging has many advantages, it also has made it easier to delete images that are not of diagnostic quality. Mistakes in imaging—from improper patient positioning, patient movement during the examination, and selecting improper equipment—could go undetected when images are deleted. Such an approach would preclude a reject analysis from which valuable lessons could be learned. In the analog days of radiography, saving the rejected films and then analyzing them was common practice among radiographers. In principle, reject analysis can be carried out easier and with better tools (ie, software) in the digital era, provided that rejected images are stored for analysis. Reject analysis and the subsequent lessons learned could reduce the number of repeat images, thus reducing imaging costs and decreasing patient exposure to radiation. The purpose of this study, which was conducted by order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, was to investigate whether hospitals in the Netherlands store and analyze failed imaging and, if so, to identify the tools used to analyze those images.
DOCUMENT
Abstract gepubliceerd in Elsevier: Introduction: Recent research has identified the issue of ‘dose creep’ in diagnostic radiography and claims it is due to the introduction of CR and DR technology. More recently radiographers have reported that they do not regularly manipulate exposure factors for different sized patients and rely on pre-set exposures. The aim of the study was to identify any variation in knowledge and radiographic practice across Europe when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using digital imaging. Methods: A random selection of 50% of educational institutes (n ¼ 17) which were affiliated members of the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS) were contacted via their contact details supplied on the EFRS website. Each of these institutes identified appropriate radiographic staff in their clinical network to complete an online survey via SurveyMonkey. Data was collected on exposures used for 3 common x-ray examinations using CR/DR, range of equipment in use, staff educational training and awareness of DRL. Descriptive statistics were performed with the aid of Excel and SPSS version 21. Results: A response rate of 70% was achieved from the affiliated educational members of EFRS and a rate of 55% from the individual hospitals in 12 countries across Europe. Variation was identified in practice when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using both CR and DR digital systems. There is wide variation in radiographer training/education across countries.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: In the Netherlands, Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) have not been based on a national survey as proposed by ICRP. Instead, local exposure data, expert judgment and the international scientific literature were used as sources. This study investigated whether the current DRLs are reasonable for Dutch radiological practice. Methods: A national project was set up, in which radiography students carried out dose measurements in hospitals supervised by medical physicists. The project ran from 2014 to 2017 and dose values were analysed for a trend over time. In the absence of such a trend, the joint yearly data sets were considered a single data set and were analysed together. In this way the national project mimicked a national survey. Results: For six out of eleven radiological procedures enough data was collected for further analysis. In the first step of the analysis no trend was found over time for any of these procedures. In the second step the joint analysis lead to suggestions for five new DRL values that are far below the current ones. The new DRLs are based on the 75 percentile values of the distributions of all dose data per procedure. Conclusion: The results show that the current DRLs are too high for five of the six procedures that have been analysed. For the other five procedures more data needs to be collected. Moreover, the mean weights of the patients are higher than expected. This introduces bias when these are not recorded and the mean weight is assumed to be 77 kg. Implications for practice: The current checking of doses for compliance with the DRLs needs to be changed. Both the procedure (regarding weights) and the values of the DRLs should be updated.
MULTIFILE
INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).METHODS: To support the hospitals, train radiography students, and carry out a nationwide dose survey, diagnostic radiography students performed 125 DRL comparisons for nine different procedures in 29 radiology departments. Students were instructed at three Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences with a radiography programme and supervised by medical physicists from the participating hospitals.RESULTS: After a pilot study in the western part of the country in eight hospitals, this study was enlarged to involve 21 hospitals from all over the Netherlands. The 86 obtained dose comparisons fall below the DRLs in 97% of all cases. This very high compliance may have been enhanced by the voluntary participation of hospitals that are confident about their performance.CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the current DRLs that were not based on a national survey, may need to be updated, sometimes to half their current value. For chest and pelvis examinations the DRLs could be lowered from 12 and 300 μGy·m 2 to the 75-percentile values found in this study of 5,9 and 188 μGy·m 2, respectively.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Zygomatic fractures can be diagnosed with either computed tomography (CT) or direct digital radiography (DR). The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of CT dose reduction on the preference for facial CT versus DR for accurate diagnosis of isolated zygomatic fractures. Materials and methods: Eight zygomatic fractures were inflicted on four human cadavers with a free fall impactor technique. The cadavers were scanned using eight CT protocols, which were identical except for a systematic decrease in radiation dose per protocol, and one DR protocol. Single axial CT images were displayed alongside a DR image of the same fracture creating a total of 64 dual images for comparison. A total of 54 observers, including radiologists, radiographers and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, made a forced choice for either CT or DR. Results: Forty out of 54 observers (74%) preferred CT over DR (all with P < 0.05). Preference for CT was maintained even when radiation dose reduced from 147.4 mSv to 46.4 mSv (DR dose was 6.9 mSv). Only a single out of all raters preferred DR (P ¼ 0.0003). The remaining 13 observers had no significant preference. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that preference for axial CT over DR is not affected by substantial (~70%) CT dose reduction for the assessment of zygomatico-orbital fractures.
MULTIFILE
Introduction In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).
LINK
This year, OPTIMAX was warmly welcomed by University College Dublin. For the sixth time students and teachers from Europe, South Africa, South America and Canada have come together enthusiastically to do research in the Radiography domain. As in previous years, there were several research groups consisting of PhD-, MSc- and BSc students and tutors from the OPTIMAX partner Universities or on invitation by partner Universities. OPTIMAX 2018 was partly funded by the partner Universities and partly by the participants.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) have not been based on a national survey as proposed by ICRP. Instead, local exposure data, expert judgment and the international scientific literature were used as sources. This study investigated whether the current DRLs are reasonable for Dutch radiological practice.METHODS: A national project was set up, in which radiography students carried out dose measurements in hospitals supervised by medical physicists. The project ran from 2014 to 2017 and dose values were analysed for a trend over time. In the absence of such a trend, the joint yearly data sets were considered a single data set and were analysed together. In this way the national project mimicked a national survey.RESULTS: For six out of eleven radiological procedures enough data was collected for further analysis. In the first step of the analysis no trend was found over time for any of these procedures. In the second step the joint analysis lead to suggestions for five new DRL values that are far below the current ones. The new DRLs are based on the 75 percentile values of the distributions of all dose data per procedure.CONCLUSION: The results show that the current DRLs are too high for five of the six procedures that have been analysed. For the other five procedures more data needs to be collected. Moreover, the mean weights of the patients are higher than expected. This introduces bias when these are not recorded and the mean weight is assumed to be 77 kg.IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The current checking of doses for compliance with the DRLs needs to be changed. Both the procedure (regarding weights) and the values of the DRLs should be updated.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: Since the first Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer’s results were published, people have become more aware of the risks associated with prenatal exposure from diagnostic x rays. As a result, it has since been the subject of many studies. In this review, the results of recent epidemiological studies are summarized. The current international guidelines for diagnostic x-ray examinations were compared to the review. All epidemiological studies starting from 2007 and all relevant international guidelines were included. Apart from one study that involved rhabdomyosarcoma, no statistically significant associations were found between prenatal exposure to x rays and the development of cancer during 2007–2020. Most of the studies were constrained in their design due to too small a cohort or number of cases, minimal x-ray exposure, and/or data obtained from the exposed mothers instead of medical reports. In one of the studies, computed tomography exposure was also included, and this requires more and longer follow-up in successive studies. Most international guidelines are comparable, provide risk coefficients that are quite conservative, and discourage abdominal examinations of pregnant women.
DOCUMENT
