Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiation Dose from MDCT Examinations for Suspected Acute Appendicitis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Imaging of Acute Appendicitis in Adults and Children

Part of the book series: Medical Radiology ((Med Radiol Diagn Imaging))

  • 2299 Accesses

Abstract

Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is frequently used in patients with right iliac fossa pain and enables confident positive and negative diagnoses of both acute appendicitis and alternative diseases. The radiation risk related to MDCT has however to be taken into account. In this chapter, we will review the background of radiation risks, dose descriptors available on CT scanners, strategies for limiting the dose per examination, and the latest technology improvements for dose optimization and reduction. We will provide dose values for optimized and low-dose acquisitions, suited for adults, adolescents, and children tending to a radiation dose delivered by MDCT reduced to that of an abdominal plain film examination with two views.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen BC, Baker ME, Einstein DM, Remer EM, Herts BR, Achkar JP, Davros WJ, Novak E, Obuchowski NA (2010) Effect of altering automatic exposure control settings and quality reference mAs on radiation dose, image quality, and diagnostic efficacy in MDCT enterography of active inflammatory Crohn’s disease. AJR 195:89–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land C (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2010) Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR 194:881–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diel J, Perlmutter S, Venkataramanan N, Mueller R, Lane MJ, Katz DS (2000) Unenhanced helical CT using increased pitch for suspected renal colic: an effective technique for radiation dose reduction? JCAT 24:795–801

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ege G, Akman H, Sahin A, Bugra D, Kuzucu K (2002) Diagnostic value of unenhanced CT in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Radiol 75:721–725

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1999) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, Report EUR 16262. Brussels: EC

    Google Scholar 

  • Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP (2001) Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 286:1748–1753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Golding SJ (2010) Radiation exposure in CT: what is the professionally responsible approach? Radiology 255:683–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golding SJ, Shrimpton PC (2002) Radiation dose in CT: are we meeting the challenge? (Commentary). Br J Radiol 75:1–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guimaraes LS, Fletcher JG, Harmsen WS, Yu L, Siddiki H, Melton Z, Huprich JE, Hough D, Hartman R, McCollough CH (2010) Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. Radiology 257:732–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm M, Knopfle E, Wartenberg S, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Harzmann R (2002) Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol 167:1687–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heneghan JP, McGuire KA, Leder RA, DeLong DM, Yoshizumi T, Nelson RC (2003) Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology 229:575–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ, Frush DP, Hall EJ, Howell RW, McCollough CH, Mettler FA, Pearce MS, Suleiman OH, Thrall JH, Wagner LK (2010) Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge radiology 101157; Published online 16 December 2010, doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101157

  • ICRP (1991) Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP 21:1–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalra MK (2007) Automatic exposure control in multidetectorrow computed tomography. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA (eds) Medical radiology: diagnostic imaging. Springer, NY, pp 117–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalra MK, Maher MM, D’Souza RV, Rizzo S, Halpern EF, Blake MA, Saini S (2005) Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with Z-Axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 235:523–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kambadakone AR, Prakash P, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2010) Low-dose CT examinations in Crohn’s disease: impact on image quality, diagnostic performance, and radiation dose. AJR 195:78–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamel IR, Goldberg SN, Keogan MT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V (2000) Right lower quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis: nonfocused appendiceal CT–review of 100 cases. Radiology 217:159–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keyzer C, Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA, Van Gansbeke D (2004) Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi–detector row CT. Radiology 232:164–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keyzer C, Cullus P, Tack D, De MV, Bohy P, Gevenois PA (2009) MDCT for suspected acute appendicitis in adults: impact of oral and IV contrast media at standard-dose and simulated low-dose techniques. AJR 193:1272–1281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krieg AF, Gambino SR, Galen RS (1975) Why are clinical laboratory tests performed? When are they valid? JAMA 233:76–78

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey RB, Mindelzun RE, Katz DS (1999) Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 213:341–346

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leng S, Yu L, McCollough CH (2010) Radiation dose reduction at CT enterography: How low can we go while preserving diagnostic accuracy? AJR 195:76–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A (2009) Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 251:6–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liu W, Esler JS, Kenny BJ, Goh RH, Rainbow AJ, Stevenson GW (2000) Low-dose nonenhanced helical ct of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology 215:51–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, Ghysen D, Van Dijck X, Mussen E, Venstermans C, Termote JL (2005) Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 237:213–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel HD (2007) CT parameters that influence radiation dose. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA (eds) Medical radiology: diagnostic imaging. Springer, NY, pp 51–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul JF, Abada HT (2007) Dose in cardiac and vascular MDCT. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA (eds) Medical radiology: diagnostic imaging. Springer, NY, pp 171–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Platon A, Jlassi H, Rutschmann OT, Becker CD, Verdun FR, Gervaz P, Poletti PA (2009) Evaluation of a low-dose CT protocol with oral contrast for assessment of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 19:446–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers LF (2001) Radiation exposure in CT: why so high? AJR 177:277

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Leitman BS, McCauley DI, Krinsky GA, Clayton K, Cohen H (1998) Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology 209:243–249

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ, Kim K, Kang SB, Kim SY, Kim YH (2009) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose IV contrast-enhanced CT scans. AJR 193:96–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, et al (2003). Data from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK-2003 review. Chilton: NRPB-67, National Radiological Protection Board

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, Licato PE, Do S, Pien HH, Blake MA (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tack D (2007) Methods and strategies for radiation dose optimization- and reduction-in MDCT with special focus on the image quality. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA (eds) Medical radiology: diagnostic imaging. Springer, NY, pp 99–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR 180:305–311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tack D, Bohy P, Perlot I, De Maertelaer V, Alkeilani O, Sourtzis S, Gevenois PA (2005) Suspected acute colon diverticulitis: imaging with low-dose unenhanced multi–detector row CT. Radiology 237:189–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM (2009) The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 251:13–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • UNSCEAR (2000) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. NY: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly United Nations

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Clinique Louis Caty, Hôpital RHMS, Rue Louis Caty 136, 7331, Baudour, Belgium

    Denis Tack

  2. Department of Radiology, Hôpital Erasme, Université libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium

    Caroline Keyzer

  3. Clos du Mélèze, 17, 1420, Braine-L’Alleud, Belgium

    Denis Tack

Authors
  1. Denis Tack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline Keyzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Tack .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Radiology, Hôpital Erasme, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels, 1070, Belgium

    Caroline KEYZER

  2. Hôspital Erasme, Department of Radiology, Université libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels, 1070, Belgium

    Pierre Alain Gevenois

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tack, D., Keyzer, C. (2012). Radiation Dose from MDCT Examinations for Suspected Acute Appendicitis. In: KEYZER, C., Gevenois, P. (eds) Imaging of Acute Appendicitis in Adults and Children. Medical Radiology(). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/174_2011_229

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/174_2011_229

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-17871-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-17872-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation