Uncategorized

The Common Vein Copyright 2008

Pregnant patientsThe National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) 1977 states ??. if in the best judgment of the attending physician, a diagnostic examination or nuclear medicine procedure at that time is deemed advisable to the medical well being of the patient, it should be carried out without delay, with special efforts being made, to minimize the dose received by the lower abdomen (uterus).?

The NCRP has set a suggested safe limit for the fetus at  50mGy

Web References

American Family Physician 5*

Health Physics Society

CDC

King Edward Memorial Hospital

ICRP powerpoint show

Web References

  1. Jones KL. Effects of therapeutic, diagnostic, and environmental agents. In: Creasy RK, Resnik R, eds. Maternal-fetal medicine. 3d ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1994:171-81.
  2. Brent RL. The effect of embryonic and fetal exposure to x-ray, microwaves, and ultrasound: counseling the pregnant and nonpregnant patient about these risks. Semin Oncol 1989;16:347-68.
  3. El Khoury GY, Madsen, M.T.,  Blake M E and Yankowitz, J.  A New Pregnancy Policy for a New Era . AJR 2003; 181:335-340 (full text)
  4. Hall EJ. Scientific view of low-level radiation risks. Radiographics 1991;11:509-18. (full text PDF)
  5. Brent RL, Gorson RO. Radiation exposure in pregnancy. In: Current Problems in Radiology. Technic of pneumoencephalography. Chicago: Year Book Medical, 1972:1-47.
  6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Medical radiation exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women. NCRP Report no. 54. Bethesda, Md.: The Council, 1977.
  7. Prasad Prasad1, SR, Wittram, W, Shepard, J, McLoud T and Rhea J .  Standard-Dose and 50%?Reduced-Dose Chest CT: Comparing the Effect on Image Quality  AJR 2002; 179:461-465
  8. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, eds. Williams Obstetrics. 20th ed. Stamford, Conn.: Appleton & Lange, 1997:1045-57.
  9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Obstetric Practice. Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. ACOG Committee opinion no. 158. Washington, D.C.: ACOG, 1995.
  10. Gray JE. Safety (risk) of diagnostic radiology exposures. In: American College of Radiology. Radiation risk: a primer. Reston, Va.: American College of Radiology, 1996.
  11. Blot WJ, Miller RW. Mental retardation following in utero exposure to the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Radiology 1973;106:617-9.
  12. Yamazaki JN, Schull WJ. Perinatal loss and neurological abnormalities among children of the atomic bomb: Nagasaki and Hiroshima revisited, 1949 to 1989. JAMA 1990;264:605-9.
  13. Otake M, Schull WJ. In utero exposure to A-bomb radiation and mental retardation: a reassessment. Br J Radiol 1984;57:409-14.
  14. Brent R, Meistrich M, Paul M. Ionizing and nonionizing radiations. In: Paul M, ed. Occupational and environmental reproductive hazards: a guide for clinicians. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1993: 165-89.
  15. Miller RW. Epidemiological conclusions from radiation toxicity studies. In: Fry RJ, Grahn D, Griem ML, Rust JH, eds. Late effects of radiation. London: Taylor & Francis, 1970.
  16. Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Board on Radiation Effects Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR V. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990.
  17. Niebyl JR. Teratology and drug use during pregnancy and lactation. In: Scott JR, DiSaia PJ, Hammond CB, Spellacy WN, eds. Danforth’s Obstetrics and gynecology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1994:225-44.
  18. Guidelines for perinatal care. 3d ed. Elk Grove Village, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1992:210-3.
  19. Bentur Y, Horlatsch N, Koren G. Exposure to ionizing radiation during pregnancy: perception of teratogenic risk and outcome. Teratology 1991;43: 109-12.
  20. Trichopoulos D, Zavitsanos X, Koutis C, Drogari P, Proukakis C, Petridou E. The victims of Chernobyl in Greece: induced abortions after the accident. Br Med J 1987;295:1100.
  21. Qanadli SD, Hajjam ME, Measurolle B, et al. Pulmonary embolism detection: prospective evaluation of dual-section helical CT versus selective pulmonary arteriography in 157 patients. Radiology 2000;217:447 -455[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Nitta N, Takahashi M, Murata K, Morita R. Ultra low-dose helical CT of the chest: evaluation in clinical cases. Radiat Med 1999;17:1 -7[Medline]
  23. Nitta N, Takahashi M, Murata K, Morita R. Ultra low-dose helical CT of the chest. AJR 1998;171:383 -385[Free Full Text]
  24. Diederich S, Wormanns D, Lenzen H, Semik M, Thomas M, Peters PE. Screening for asymptomatic early bronchogenic carcinoma with low CT of the chest. Cancer2000;89[suppl 11]:2483S -2484S
  25. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 2000 Report to the General Assembly, annex D: medical radiation exposures. New York: United Nations, 2000. UN publication E.00.1X.3:395
  26. Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA. CT scanning patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000;20:353 -359[Medline]
  27. Diederich S, Lenzen H, Windmann R, et al. Pulmonary nodules: experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. Radiology 1999;213:289 -298[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Ambrosino MM, Genieser NB, Roche KJ, Kaul A, Lawrence RM. Feasibility of high-resolution, low-dose chest CT in evaluating the pediatric chest. Pediatr Radiol 1994;24:6 -10[Medline]
  29. Hall EJ. Scientific view of low-level radiation risks. RadioGraphics 1991;11:509 -518[Abstract]
  30. Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL, Vaeth M, Mabuchi K. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors report 12. I. Cancer: 1950-1990. Radiat Res 1996;146:1 -27[Medline]
  31. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. New York: United Nations, 1994. UN Publication E.94.1X.11
  32. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 2001;176:289 -296[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Toth TL, Bromberg NB, Pan TS, et al. A dose reduction x-ray beam positioning system for high-speed multislice CT scanners. Med Phys 2000;27:2659 -2668[Medline]
  34. Itoh S, Koyama S, Ikeda M, et al. Further reduction of radiation dose in helical CT for lung cancer screening using small tube current and a newly designed filter. J Thorac Imaging 2001;16:81 -88[Medline]
  35. Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based online modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 2000;10:391 -394[Medline]
  36. EUR 16262. Quality criteria for computed tomography. Available at: www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/download/eur16262.w51. Accessed January 25, 2002
  37. Naidich DP, Marshall CH, Gribbin C, Arams RS, McCauley DI. Low-dose CT of the lungs: preliminary observations. Radiology 1990;175:729 -731[Abstract]
  38. Zwirewich CV, Mayo JR, Muller NL. Low-dose high-resolution CT of lung parenchyma. Radiology1991;180:413 -417[Abstract]
  39. Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology 1998;209:243 -249[Abstract]
  40. Lucaya J, Piqueras J, García-Peña P, Enriquez G, García-Macías M, Sotil J. Low-dose high-resolution CT of the chest in children and young adults: dose, cooperation, artifact incidence, and image quality. AJR 2000;175:985 -992[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Cohnen M, Fischer H, Hamacher J, Lins E, Kotter R, Modder U. CT of the head by use of reduced current and kilovoltage: relationship between image quality and dose reduction. AJNR 2000;21:1654 -1660[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Sohaib SA, Peppercorn PD, Horrocks JA, Keene MH, Kenyon GS, Reznek RH. The effect of decreasing mAs on image quality and patient dose in sinus CT. Br J Radiol2001;74:157 -161[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Vade A, Demos TC, Olson MC, et al. Evaluation of image quality using 1:1 pitch and 1.5:1 pitch helical CT in children: a comparative study. Pediatr Radiol1996;26:891 -893[Medline]
  44. Fleischmann D, Rubin GD, Paik DS, et al. Stair-step artifacts with single versus multiple detector-row helical CT. Radiology 2000;216:185 -196[Abstract/Free Full Text]