Journal of Radiology
Open Access

Foetal Radiation; Diagnostic Radiology; Radiation dosimetry

Introduction

Diagnostic radiology has revolutionized modern healthcare, enabling physicians to visualize internal structures and identify abnormalities without invasive procedures. However, the use of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging raises concerns, especially when pregnant patients require medical assessments. The developing foetus is particularly sensitive to radiation exposure and understanding and mitigating potential risks is paramount. In this article, we explore the findings of a comprehensive global study that aimed to assess foetal radiation risk associated with diagnostic radiology procedures [1, 2]. By examining data from various countries, this study provides crucial insights into the variations in foetal radiation dose and risk across regions, highlighting the importance of optimizing radiation safety for pregnant patients.

Therefore, the working conditions of a pregnant worker, after declaration of pregnancy, should be such as to ensure that the additional dose to the embryo/foetus would not exceed about 1 mSv during the remainder of the pregnancy. Irrespective of how these protective measures are applied in practice, it is almost inevitable that inadvertent foetal radiation exposures do occur [3-5]. In these circumstances, it is necessary to consult an expert in medical physics and request that the foetal dose and hence the projected risks be estimated. This may require the medical physicist to calculate the dose based on the knowledge of the technique factors used, or a simulation of the examination using a phantom loaded with dosimeters or review the data from published scientific literature

Methods

The Global Foetal Radiation Risk Study was designed to collect and analyze data from healthcare institutions across the world. The study adopted a multinational approach, gathering information on a wide range of diagnostic radiology procedures. The key methods used in this study included:

Data collection: A collaborative effort was made to collect data from diverse healthcare institutions globally. Information on the types and frequencies of radiology procedures performed on pregnant patients was recorded [6].

Radiation dosimetry: Foetal radiation doses were estimated for each procedure using established dosimetry models and specialized software. These calculations took into account factors such as the type of procedure, the gestational age of the foetus, and the radiation equipment used.

Statistical analysis: Statistical methods were applied to analyze the collected data. This included calculating mean radiation doses, assessing radiation risk, and comparing regional data to identify variations and trends [7].

Results

The study’s findings shed light on several important aspects of foetal radiation risk in diagnostic radiology: Variability in foetal radiation doses: The study revealed substantial variability in foetal radiation doses across different radiology procedures. Some procedures resulted in negligible foetal exposure, while others posed a higher risk.

Regional differences: Regional variations in foetal radiation risk were identified. Factors such as healthcare practices, equipment standards, and radiation protection measures contributed to these differences. For example, countries with more stringent radiation safety regulations tended to have lower foetal radiation risk [8].

Risk mitigation strategies: The study emphasized the importance of tailored strategies for reducing foetal radiation risk. These strategies included patient education about the benefits and risks of radiology procedures during pregnancy, as well as optimization of imaging protocols to minimize radiation exposure.

Discussion

The implications of this global study are significant for clinical practice and patient care:

Personalized risk assessment: The findings underscore the importance of individualized risk assessment for pregnant patients. Radiologists and healthcare providers should carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of each procedure and make informed decisions regarding imaging during pregnancy [9].

Optimization of radiation protocols: The study highlights the ongoing need to refine and optimize radiation protocols for pregnant patients. This includes adjusting equipment settings, using alternative imaging modalities when appropriate, and ensuring that the lowest possible radiation dose is used to achieve diagnostic quality images.

Patient education: Pregnant patients should be informed about the radiation risks associated with diagnostic radiology procedures. Informed decision-making and open communication between healthcare providers and patients are essential in ensuring the wellbeing of both the mother and the foetus [10].

Conclusion

The Global Foetal Radiation Risk Study has provided valuable insights into the variations in foetal radiation dose and risk associated with diagnostic radiology procedures across different regions of the world. This research underscores the importance of personalized risk assessment, optimization of radiation protocols, and patient education in minimizing foetal radiation exposure. By implementing these strategies, healthcare providers can enhance patient care and safety for pregnant patients undergoing diagnostic radiology procedures on a global scale.

In an era where healthcare is increasingly globalized, the findings of this study offer guidance and awareness to healthcare professionals and institutions worldwide, contributing to the well-being of pregnant patients and their unborn children.

1. Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ (2019) Management of Crohn's disease in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 114: 529-554.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

2. Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, Regueiro MD, Gerson LB, et al. (2018) ACG clinical guideline: management of Crohn's disease in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 113: 481-517.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N, Underwood FE, Tang W, et al. (2018) Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: a systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet 390: 2769-2778.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L (2017) Crohn's disease. Lancet 389: 1741-1755.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ (2012) Crohn's disease. Lancet 380: 1590-1605.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Khor B, Gardet A, Xavier RJ (2011) Genetics and pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature 474: 307-317.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Danese S, Fiocchi C (2011) Ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 365: 1713-1725.

Indexed at, Crossref

8. Loftus EV Jr. (2004) Clinical epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease: incidence, prevalence, and environmental influences. Gastroenterology 126: 1504-1517.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Kaplan GG, Ng SC (2017) Understanding and preventing the global increase of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 152: 313-321.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Matsuoka K, Kanai T (2015) The gut microbiota and inflammatory bowel disease. Semin Immunopathol 37: 47-55.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref