RESUMEN
Indication-based national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for a few most common paediatric computed tomography (CT) examinations are proposed. Patient dose data (CTDI vol and dose length product) were collected for over 1000 patients in 4 university hospitals with best experiences in paediatric CT. Four indications for chest CT and two for abdomen (abdomen + pelvis), chest + abdomen and head CT were considered. The DRLs for the body examinations are proposed as exponential DRL-curves, where CTDI vol and dose length product are presented as a function of patient weight. The same DRL curve applies to all the indications studied. The basic 75 % level curve is supplemented by 50 % level curve to enable considerations on varying levels of technology. For head CT, DRLs are proposed for a few age groups (1, 1-5, 5-10 and 10-15 y), separately for routine CT and CT for ventricular size. The proposed DRLs are generally lower than the few published DRLs in other countries.
Asunto(s)
Dosis de Radiación , Tomógrafos Computarizados por Rayos X , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/normas , Algoritmos , Niño , Finlandia , Hospitales , Humanos , Pediatría/normas , Radiometría/métodos , Valores de Referencia , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Paediatric rectal prolapse (RP) is rarely a diagnostic problem and resolves often spontaneously. We studied whether the assessment of recurrent RP (RP), postoperative relapsed RP (RRP) or anorectal discomfort without RP (ARD) benefits from dynamic defecography (DD) and describe DD findings in relation with outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients (7 males), median age of 10 (range 3.7-15) years, underwent 19 DD with a synchronic small bowel contrast study. Indications for DD were RP (n = 11), RD (n = 3) and RRP (n = 1). Three patients had solitary rectal ulcer and one juvenile rectal polyps (n = 1). Three patients underwent a total of four postoperative DD because of suspected relapse. RESULTS: In 11 patients with a clinically diagnosed prolapse DD displayed a simple prolapse (n = 3), prolapse with enterocele (n = 1), prolapse with small bowel interposition (n = 1), rectal intussusception with anterior rectocele (n = 1) and rectal intussusception (n = 1) and no pathology (n = 4) (37 %). In four patients with ARD DD displayed rectal prolapse originating from sigmoid intussusception (n = 1), enterocele (n = 1) and anterior rectocele (n = 1) and no pathology in one. Median follow-up was 8.1(range 3.0-44) months. Ten patients underwent surgery. Three patients with RP underwent simple laparoscopic rectopexy, five with RP or RD with enterocele or anterior rectocele had rectopexy with anterior peritoneoplasty and two (RP n = 1, RRP n = 1) with sigmoid intussusception had sigmoid resection with rectopexy. Two symptomatic patients (RP, negative DD) are scheduled for rectopexy. Three patients PPRP (n = 2) RD (n = 1) had spontaneous cure. Postoperative DD confirmed relapsed RP in one patient. CONCLUSION: In patients, RP and associated disorders' DD can disclose significant pathology (enterocele, rectocele or sigmoid intussusception) and thereby guide surgical treatment, and should be included in the pre-treatment assessment.
Asunto(s)
Defecografía , Prolapso Rectal/diagnóstico por imagen , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Defecografía/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Prolapso Rectal/complicaciones , Prolapso Rectal/diagnóstico , Prolapso Rectal/cirugía , Rectocele/complicaciones , Recurrencia , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Despite the fact that doses to paediatric patients from computed tomography (CT) examinations are of special concern, only few data or studies for setting of paediatric diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been published. In this study, doses to children were estimated from chest and head CT, in order to study the feasibility of DRLs for these examinations. It is shown that for the DRLs, patient dose data from different CT scanners should be collected in age or weight groups, possibly for different indications. For practical reasons, the DRLs for paediatric chest CT should be given as a continuous DRL curve as a function of patient weight. For paediatric head CT, DRLs for a few age groups could be given. The users of the DRLs should be aware of the calibration phantom applied in the console calibration for different paediatric scanning protocols. The feasibility of DRLs should be re-evaluated every 2-3 y.
