Search

Background: In the recent years, clinical progress and better medical assistance for pregnant women, together with the introduction of new complex technologies, has improved the survival of preterm infants. However, this result requires frequent radiological investigations mostly represented by thoracic and abdominal radiographs in incubators. This document was elaborated by an expert panel Italian inter-society working group (Radiologists, Paediatricians, Medical Physicists) with the aim to assist healthcare practitioners in taking choices involving radiation exposures of new-born infants and to provide practical recommendations about justification and optimization in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. The adherence to these practice recommendations could ensure a high quality and patient safety. More complex and less common radiological practice, such as CT scan or fluoroscopy have been excluded., Methods: The consensus was reached starting from current good practice evidence shared by four scientific societies panel: AIFM (Italian Association of Physics in Medicine), SIN (Italian Neonatology Society), SIP (Italian Paediatric Society), SIRM (Italian Medical Radiology Society) in order to guarantee good standard practices for every professional involved in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU). The report is divided into clinical and physical-dosimetric sections: clinical Indications, good practice in radiological exposures, devices, exposure parameters and modalities, patient positioning and immobilization, Reference Diagnostic Levels, operators and patient's radiation protection. Another important topic was the evaluation of the different incubators in order to understand if the consequences of the technological evolution have had an impact on the increase of the dose to the small patients, and how to choose the best device in terms of radiation protection. At the end the working group faced the problem of setting up the correct communication between clinicians and parents following the most recent indications of the international paediatric societies., Results: Taking into account the experience and expertise of 10 Italian Centres, the guideline sets out the criteria to ensure a high standard of neonatal care in NICU about procedures, facilities, recommended equipment, quality assurance, radiation protection measures for children and staff members and communication on radiation risk., Conclusions: This document will allow a standardization of the approach to the exposures in NICU, although oriented to a flexible methodology.

The frequency of imaging examinations requiring radiation exposure in children (especially CT) is rapidly increasing. This paper reviews the current evidence in radiation protection in pediatric imaging, focusing on the recent knowledge of the biological risk related to low doses exposure. Even if there are no strictly defined limits for patient radiation exposure, it is recommended to try to keep doses as low as reasonably achievable (the ALARA principle). To achieve ALARA, several techniques to reduce the radiation dose in radiation-sensitive patients groups are reviewed. The most recent recommendations that provide guidance regarding imaging of pregnant women are also summarized, and the risk depending on dose and phase of pregnancy is reported. Finally, the risk-benefit analysis of each examination, and careful communication of this risk to the patient, is emphasized.

Background: In a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), preterm infants are often exposed to a large number of radiographic examinations, which could cause adjacent neonates, family caregivers and staff members to be exposed to a dose amount due to scatter radiation., Objective: To provide information on scatter radiation exposure levels in a NICU, to compare these values with the effective dose limits established by the European Union and to evaluate the effectiveness of radiation protection devices in this setting., Materials and Methods: Radiation exposure levels due to scatter radiation were estimated by passive detectors (thermoluminescent dosimeters) and direct dosimetric measurements (with a dose rate meter); in the latter case, an angular map of the scatter dose distribution was achieved., Results: The dose due to scatter radiation to staff in our setting is approximately 160 μSv/year, which is markedly lower than the effective dose limit for workers established by the European Union (20 mSv/year). The doses range between 0.012 and 0.095 μSv/radiograph. Considering a mean hospitalization period of 3 months and our NICU workload, the corresponding scatter radiation dose to an adjacent patient and/or his/her caregiver is at most 40 μSv., Conclusion: For distances greater than 1 m from the irradiation field, both scatter dose absorbed by a staff member during a year and that by an adjacent patient and/or his/her caregiver during hospitalization is less than 1 mSv, which is the exposure limit for public members in a year.

Since 2000, a series of scientific articles on CT have been raising increasing concern about the risk of radiation induced cancer in children. The alarming conclusions of some of these articles had international echo through global media, provoking widespread public concern. Actually, many of these alarming scientific publications appeared to be flawed by poor study design, but their conclusions were not openly contradicted. In US and Europe pediatric radiologists had to face a huge challenge, which brought to the Image Gently campaign and the Eurosafe initiative with the aim to rebut misinformation and to support medical radiation protection. The Linear No Threshold model-which is the base of contemporary radioprotection-is increasingly questioned by new recent studies suggesting that low dose radiation would decrease cancer risk thanks to the enhancement of immune system response. Actually, pediatric radiologists have to cope with many important issues and contradictory messages. Good medical practice includes good communication about the benefits and risks of health procedures, thus the communication of radiation risk is a key component for radiologists. When considering benefits and risks, an important risk is too often ignored: the risk that skipping a diagnostic exam may cause a misdiagnosis, and therefore, a poor outcome. We should emphasize that a risk from a radiological investigation is very small, if a risk at all, and we are not sure that there is a risk at very low doses, like those doses in the majority of X-ray procedures including CT.