Search

Your search keyword '"Marrale Maurizio"' showing total 4 results
Start Over Author "Marrale Maurizio" Journal la radiologia medica
4 results on '"Marrale Maurizio"'

3. Cumulative doses analysis in young trauma patients: a single-centre experience.

Author

Salerno, Sergio, Marrale, Maurizio, Geraci, Claudia, Caruso, Giuseppe, Lo Re, Giuseppe, Lo Casto, Antonio, and Midiri, Massimo

Abstract

Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) represents the main source of radiation exposure in trauma patients. The radiation exposure of young patients is a matter of considerable medical concern due to possible long-term effects. Multiple MDCT studies have been observed in the young trauma population with an increase in radiation exposure. We have identified 249 young adult patients (178 men and 71 women; age range 14-40 years) who had received more than one MDCT study between June 2010 and June 2014. According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection publication, we have calculated the cumulative organ dose tissue-weighting factors by using CT-EXPO software. We have observed a mean cumulative dose of about 27 mSv (range from 3 to 297 mSv). The distribution analysis is characterised by low effective dose, below 20 mSv, in the majority of the patients. However, in 29 patients, the effective dose was found to be higher than 20 mSv. Dose distribution for the various organs analysed (breasts, ovaries, testicles, heart and eye lenses) shows an intense peak for lower doses, but in some cases high doses were recorded. Even though cumulative doses may have long-term effects, which are still under debate, high doses are observed in this specific group of young patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Patient centring and scan length: how inaccurate practice impacts on radiation dose in CT colonography (CTC)

Author

Maurizio Marrale, Laura Scopelliti, Maria Chiara Terranova, Davide Bellini, Giuseppe Lo Re, Marco Rengo, Sergio Salerno, Andrea Laghi, Salerno, Sergio, Lo Re, Giuseppe, Bellini, Davide, Rengo, Marco, Marrale, Maurizio, Terranova, Maria Chiara, Scopelliti, Laura, and Laghi, Andrea

Subjects
Male, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Supine position, Time Factors, Estimated, Radiotherapy Setup Errors, Radiation Dosage, Effective dose (radiation), Patient Positioning, 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging, Centring, Cohort Studies, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, CT colonography, CTC, estimated, isocentre, positioning, scan length, radiology, nuclear nedicine and imaging, Prone Position, Supine Position, Medicine, Humans, In patient, Aged, Retrospective Studies, Medical Errors, business.industry, Ultrasound, Radiation dose, Anal orifice, Scan length, General Medicine, Middle Aged, Radiation Exposure, Isocentre, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Total dose, Female, business, Nuclear medicine, Colonography, Computed Tomographic, Positioning
Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to acknowledge errors in patients positioning in CT colonography (CTC) and their effect in radiation exposure. Materials and methods: CTC studies of a total of 199 patients coming from two different referral hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Two parameters have been considered for the analysis: patient position in relation to gantry isocentre and scan length related to the area of interest. CTDI vol and DLP were extracted for each patient. In order to evaluate the estimated effective total dose and the dose to various organs, we used the CT-EXPO ® software version 2.2. This software provides estimates of effective dose and doses to the other various organs. Results: Average value of the patients’ position is found to be below the isocentre for 48 ± 25mm and 29 ± 27mm in the prone and supine position. It was observed that the increase in CTDI and DLP values for patients in Group 1, due to the inaccurate positioning, was estimated at about 30% and 20% for prone and supine position, respectively, while in Group 2, a decrease in CTDI and DLP values was estimated at about 16% and 18% for prone and supine position, respectively, due to an average position above isocentre. A dose increase ranging from 4 up to 13% was calculated with increasing the over-scanned region below anal orifice. Conclusion: Radiographers and radiologists need to be aware of dose variation and noise effects on vertical positioning and over-scanning. More accurate training need to be achieved even so when examination protocol varies from general practice.

Published
2019

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results