ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To measure the actual radiation dose delivered by imaging techniques commonly used in the radiography of suspected physical abuse and to make this information available to health professionals and families. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively on children under 3 years referred for skeletal surveys for suspected physical abuse, non-contrast CT head scan or radionuclide imaging of the bones in Starship Children's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand from January to December 2015. Patient size-specific conversion coefficients were derived from International Commission on Radiologic Protection tissue weighting factors and used to calculate effective dose. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients underwent an initial skeletal survey, receiving a mean effective dose of 0.20 mSv (95% CI 0.18 to 0.22). Sixteen patients had a follow-up survey with a mean effective dose of 0.10 mSv (95% CI 0.08 to 0.11). Eighty patients underwent CT head which delivered a mean effective dose of 2.49 mSv (95% CI 2.37 to 2.60). Thirty-nine patients underwent radionuclide bone imaging which delivered a mean effective dose of 2.27 mSv (95% CI 2.11 to 2.43). CONCLUSIONS: In a paediatric centre, skeletal surveys deliver a relatively low effective radiation dose, equivalent to approximately 1 month of background radiation. Non-contrast CT head scan and radionuclide bone imaging deliver similar doses, equivalent to approximately 1 year of background radiation. This information should be considered when gaining informed consent and incorporated in patient education handouts.
Subject(s)
Child Abuse/diagnosis , Fractures, Bone/diagnostic imaging , Hospitals, Pediatric , Radiation Dosage , Radiation Exposure , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , New Zealand/epidemiology , Physical Abuse , Radiation Exposure/adverse effects , Radionuclide Imaging , Retrospective Studies , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Clinically occult fractures from non-accidental injury (NAI) are best detected on radiographic skeletal survey. However, there are regional variations regarding the views included in such surveys. We undertook a systematic review of the evidence supporting skeletal survey protocols to design a protocol that could be implemented across New Zealand. METHODS: In June 2013, we searched Medline, Google Scholar, the Cochrane database, UpToDate and relevant reference lists for English-language publications on skeletal survey in NAI from 1946. We included publications that contained a protocol or reported evidence supporting including, or excluding, specific views in a skeletal survey. All included publications were critically appraised. Based on this systematic review, a draft protocol was developed and presented to an Australian and New Zealand Society for Paediatric Radiology NAI symposium in October 2013. Feedback from the symposium and later discussions was incorporated into the final protocol. RESULTS: We identified 2 guidelines for skeletal survey, 13 other protocols and 15 articles providing evidence for inclusion of specific images in a skeletal survey. The guidelines scored poorly on critical appraisal of several aspects of their methods. We found no studies that validate any of the protocols or compare their performance. Evidence supporting inclusion in a skeletal survey is limited to ribs, spine, pelvis, hands and feet, and long bone views. Our final protocol is a standardised, two-tiered protocol consisting of between 17 and 22 views. CONCLUSION: A standardised protocol for radiographic skeletal survey protocol has been developed in New Zealand. We present it here for consideration by others.
