Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 600–608 | Cite as

Radiation dose monitoring in pediatric fluoroscopy: comparison of fluoroscopy time and dose–area product thresholds for identifying high-exposure cases

  • Matthew S. LazarusEmail author
  • Benjamin H. Taragin
  • William Malouf
  • Terry L. Levin
  • Eduardo Nororis
  • Alan H. Schoenfeld
  • Amichai J. Erdfarb
Original Article



Fluoroscopy time has been used as a surrogate for radiation dose monitoring in pediatric fluoroscopy; however it does not account for factors such as magnification or collimation. Dose–area product (DAP) is a more accurate measure of radiation exposure but its dependence on patient weight and body-part thickness is a challenge in children of varying ages.


To determine whether fluoroscopy time and DAP produce concurrent results when they are used to identify high-exposure cases, and to establish radiation dose thresholds for our institution.

Materials and methods

During a 2-year period we prospectively monitored pediatric fluoroscopy studies performed at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore. We recorded study type, fluoroscopy time, DAP, patient age, weight and height. We then calculated 90th percentile fluoroscopy time and DAP thresholds for weight and age.


We evaluated 1,011 cases (453 upper gastrointestinal [UGI] series, 266 voiding cystourethrograms [VCUGs], 120 contrast enemas, 108 speech studies, and 64 esophagrams). Fluoroscopy time demonstrated moderate correlation with DAP (rs=0.45, P<0.001, Spearman rank). DAP strongly correlated with patient weight (rs=0.71, P<0.001) and age (rs=0.70, P<0.001). Concordance of cases exceeding 90th percentile thresholds for fluoroscopy time and DAP were κ=0.27 for UGI series and κ=0.49 for VCUG for weight-based cutoffs, and κ=0.36 for UGI series and κ=0.40 for VCUG for age-based cutoffs.


The limited correlation of fluoroscopy time with DAP suggests these methods are not equivalent for dose monitoring. However, the strong correlation of DAP with patient weight and age presents a challenge for establishing DAP thresholds in children, who range widely in size. Despite controlling for weight or age, there was limited overlap of cases exceeding the 90th percentile threshold for fluoroscopy time and DAP. This further reinforces the non-overlapping outcome of these two methods and indicates that fluoroscopy time might be inadequate for dose monitoring.


Children Dose–area product Fluoroscopy Radiation dose Upper gastrointestinal series Voiding cystourethrography 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Supplementary material

247_2018_4335_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary Table S1 (DOCX 12 kb)
247_2018_4335_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary Table S2 (DOCX 16 kb)
247_2018_4335_MOESM3_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary Table S3 (DOCX 18.8 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hernanz-Schulman M, Goske MJ, Bercha IH et al (2011) Pause and pulse: ten steps that help manage radiation dose during pediatric fluoroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernandez RJ, Goodsitt MM (1996) Reduction of radiation dose in pediatric patients using pulsed fluoroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:1247–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lederman HM, Khademian ZP, Felice M et al (2002) Dose reduction fluoroscopy in pediatrics. Pediatr Radiol 32:844–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ward VL, Strauss KJ, Barnewolt CE et al (2008) Pediatric radiation exposure and effective dose reduction during voiding cystourethrography. Radiology 249:1002–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown PH, Thomas RD, Silberberg PJ et al (2000) Optimization of a fluoroscope to reduce radiation exposure in pediatric imaging. Pediatr Radiol 30:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansson B, Finnbogason T, Schuwert P et al (1997) Added copper filtration in digital paediatric double-contrast colon examinations: effects on radiation dose and image quality. Eur Radiol 7:1117–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nicholson RA, Thornton A, Akpan M (1995) Radiation dose reduction in paediatric fluoroscopy using added filtration. Br J Radiol 68:296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jaju A, Shaw HL, Don S et al (2015) ALARA: impact of practice quality improvement initiative on dose reduction in pediatric voiding cystourethrogram. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:886–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fefferman NR, Sabach AS, Rivera R et al (2009) The efficacy of digital fluoroscopic image capture in the evaluation of vesicoureteral reflux in children. Pediatr Radiol 39:1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown PH, Silberberg PJ, Thomas RD et al (2000) A multihospital survey of radiation exposure and image quality in pediatric fluoroscopy. Pediatr Radiol 30:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duncan JR, Panahipour S, Street M (2015) Monitoring patient exposure during fluoroscopic procedures: how we do it. J Am Coll Radiol 12:617–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strauss KJ, Kaste SC (2006) The ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concept in pediatric interventional and fluoroscopic imaging: striving to keep radiation doses as low as possible during fluoroscopy of pediatric patients — a white paper executive summary. Radiology 240:621–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American College of Radiology (2016) Physician quality reporting system measure #145: radiology: exposure time reported for procedures using fluoroscopy – national quality strategy domain: patient safety. Accessed 3 Dec 2018
  14. 14.
    Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB et al (2009) Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:S263–S273Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pantos I, Patatoukas G, Katritsis DG et al (2009) Patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology procedures. Curr Cardiol Rev 5:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghodadra A, Bartoletti S (2016) Reducing radiation dose in pediatric diagnostic fluoroscopy. J Am Coll Radiol 13:55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao AG, Simmons CE Sr, Thacker PG et al (2016) Radiation exposure contribution of the scout abdomen radiograph in common pediatric fluoroscopic procedures. Pediatr Radiol 46:1241–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wambani JS, Korir GK, Tries MA et al (2014) Patient radiation exposure during general fluoroscopy examinations. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15:4555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chida K, Ohno T, Kakizaki S et al (2010) Radiation dose to the pediatric cardiac catheterization and intervention patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1175–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghelani SJ, Glatz AC, David S et al (2014) Radiation dose benchmarks during cardiac catheterization for congenital heart disease in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 7:1060–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mahesh M (2001) Fluoroscopy: patient radiation exposure issues. Radiographics 21:1033–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nickoloff EL, Lu ZF, Dutta AK et al (2008) Radiation dose descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and other strange creatures. Radiographics 28:1439–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE et al (2003) Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:711–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) Clinical growth charts. Accessed 3 Dec 2018
  25. 25.
    Anvari A, Halpern EF, Samir AE (2015) Statistics 101 for radiologists. Radiographics 35:1789–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hart D, Hillier M, Shrimpton P (2012) Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK — 2010 review. Health Protection Agency Centre for Radiation, Chemical, and Environmental Hazards, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Montefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA
  2. 2.Albert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA
  3. 3.Soroka Hospital at Ben-Gurion University Medical CenterBeer ShevaIsrael
  4. 4.Wake Forest Baptist HealthWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations