Urology · 2018
Radiation From Kidney-Ureter-Bladder Radiographs Is Not Trivial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kuebker Joseph, Shuman Jillian, Hsi Ryan S, Herrell S Duke, Miller Nicole L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate effective dose of kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) radiographs in a contemporary population of patients with urolithiasis.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify patients visiting a urology clinic for urolithiasis where a KUB was obtained and whom had a recent computed tomography (CT). Effective dose for KUBs was estimated using a Monte Carlo based simulation program and for CT utilizing the reported dose-length-product. Age, gender, body mass index, and abdominal diameter were analyzed for association with effective dose. KUBs performed at outside facilities in referred patient were compared to those obtained locally when available.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were identified meeting criteria. The majority (92.6%) of KUBs contained multiple radiographs. Mean effective dose was 2.15 mSv ± 1.67 mSv. Only 26% of examinations effective dose was under 1 mSv. Body mass index, abdominal thickness, and image count were all associated with an increase in dose (P < .01 each). Similar to local KUBs, 88% of outside examinations contained multiple images.
CONCLUSION: KUB examinations in this contemporary setting are associated with a 2-fold higher effective dose then is often referenced. Increased effective dose is associated with increased patient size and number of images acquired. Nearly 1 in 5 patient's KUB effective dose was similar to a low-dose CT. KUBs role should be re-examined given its limited sensitivity, specificity, associated radiation, and other available imaging options.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify patients visiting a urology clinic for urolithiasis where a KUB was obtained and whom had a recent computed tomography (CT). Effective dose for KUBs was estimated using a Monte Carlo based simulation program and for CT utilizing the reported dose-length-product. Age, gender, body mass index, and abdominal diameter were analyzed for association with effective dose. KUBs performed at outside facilities in referred patient were compared to those obtained locally when available.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were identified meeting criteria. The majority (92.6%) of KUBs contained multiple radiographs. Mean effective dose was 2.15 mSv ± 1.67 mSv. Only 26% of examinations effective dose was under 1 mSv. Body mass index, abdominal thickness, and image count were all associated with an increase in dose (P < .01 each). Similar to local KUBs, 88% of outside examinations contained multiple images.
CONCLUSION: KUB examinations in this contemporary setting are associated with a 2-fold higher effective dose then is often referenced. Increased effective dose is associated with increased patient size and number of images acquired. Nearly 1 in 5 patient's KUB effective dose was similar to a low-dose CT. KUBs role should be re-examined given its limited sensitivity, specificity, associated radiation, and other available imaging options.