Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective analysis assesses radiation dose values in pediatric contrast-enhanced CT, indicating a need for protocol optimization.
Reducing radiation exposure in pediatric imaging is a key focus globally, and it is necessary to establish diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in children. This study assesses typical radiation dose values from contrast-enhanced CT examinations of children to provide a reference for internal quality control. A retrospective analysis was conducted on contrast-enhanced CT data from 330 pediatric patients at our hospital between January 2020 and December 2024. Patients were categorized into four age groups: 0-4 y, >4-10 y, >10-14 y, and >14-18 y. Basic patient information, CT scan parameters, total computed tomography volume dose index (CTDIvol), and dose-length product (DLP) were collected. Differences in total CTDIvol, DLP, and effective dose among different age groups were analyzed and compared with DRL values from domestic and international studies. The effective dose values for head CTA, neck, chest, coronary artery, liver, kidney, and abdomen were 54.48, 21.46, 7.76, 8.58, 14,74, 7.27, and 17.96 mSv, respectively. No significant differences across different age groups were observed in total CTDIvol and DLP for head angiography, neck, chest, and coronary artery scans (CTDIvol: χ2=4.31, 4.77, 0.48, 7.50; DLP: χ2=4.85, 2.03, 2.38, 4.17 P>0.05). However, significant differences were found in total CTDIvol and DLP for liver, kidney and abdominal scans among different age groups (CTDIvol: χ2=2.19, 8.86, 11.26; DLP: χ2=3.76, 7.71, 10.07; P<0.05). This study revealed the radiation dose for some regions does not show significant differences among different ages in CT enhanced scans, and the CTDIvol values for some ages exceeded international DRL standards, indicating a need for optimization of contrast-enhanced CT scanning protocols in children in our hospital.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: