Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 27, No. 3, 2009
Issue release date: September 2009
Section title: Differences in the Diagnostic Procedures
Dig Dis 2009;27:278–284
(DOI:10.1159/000228561)

Risk of Radiation and Choice of Imaging

Herfarth H. · Palmer L.
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C., USA

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 38.00
Account: USD 26.50

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Automatic perpetual access to all articles of the subscribed year(s)
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Differences in the Diagnostic Procedures

Published online: 9/24/2009

Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 0257-2753 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9875 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/DDI

Abstract

Radiological imaging plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The barium or contrast techniques enteroclysis (SBE) and small bowel follow through (SBFT) are still the mainstays in small bowel imaging. However, abdominal CT and MRI, including enteroclysis, have comparable sensitivity and specificity in detecting intestinal pathologies and have gained in popularity over conventional techniques. The cancer risk associated with diagnostic procedures employing radiation has been receiving increasing attention over the last few years. The cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation may be a specific concern in young patients with IBD, who are more susceptible than adults to the risks of ionizing radiation. Substantial exposure to radiation seems to be mainly caused by CT examinations of the abdomen. For that reason, imaging methods such as MRI or ultrasound should be considered first when debating between alternative imaging strategies, particularly in young IBD patients. The major drawbacks of MRI are its limited availability and greater costs compared to CT. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound is clearly operator dependent, which limits the range of its applications. In light of these concerns, diagnostic imaging studies using radiation will continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients with IBD. Therefore, we need to develop low-radiation imaging protocols or improve access to MRI imaging procedures. We also need to identify subsets of IBD patients who are at greater risk of a significant lifetime exposure to radiation and develop methods to monitor their radiation exposure rate.


  

Author Contacts

Hans Herfarth, MD
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine
University of North Carolina, Bioinformatics Bldg., CB#7080
Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (USA)
Tel. +1 919 966 6806, Fax +1 919 966 7592, E-Mail hherf@med.unc.edu

  

Article Information

Published online: September 24, 2009
Number of Print Pages : 7
Number of Figures : 1, Number of Tables : 5, Number of References : 51

  

Publication Details

Digestive Diseases (Clinical Reviews)

Vol. 27, No. 3, Year 2009 (Cover Date: September 2009)

Journal Editor: Malfertheiner P. (Magdeburg)
ISSN: 0257-2753 (Print), eISSN: 1421-9875 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/DDI


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Differences in the Diagnostic Procedures

Published online: 9/24/2009

Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 0257-2753 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9875 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/DDI


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.