Assessment of maternal and fetal radiation exposure during CT pelvimetry in two radiology departments in Morocco

Open Access

Issue		Radioprotection Volume 60, Number 2, Avril-Juin 2025


Page(s)		152 - 158
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2024054
Published online		13 June 2025

Aabid M, Semghouli S, Choukri A. 2023. Assessment of computed tomography dose index (CTDI) during CT pelvimetry using monte carlo simulation. Atom Indonesia 49 (1): 2023. https://doi.org/10.55981/aij.2023.1214. [Google Scholar]
AAPM. 2008. The measurement, Reporting,and Management of adiation Dose in CT, report No 96. [Google Scholar]
ASN. 2019. Order of 23 May 2019 Approving Decision No. 2019-DC-0667 of the French Nuclear Safety Authority of 18 April 2019 on the Methods for Assessing Ionizing Radiation Doses Delivered to Patients During Radiology Procedures. Official Journal of the French Republic. [Google Scholar]
Aubry S, Padoin P, Petegnief Y, Vidal C, Riethmuller D, Delabrousse E. 2018. Can three-dimensional pelvimetry using low-dose stereoradiography replace low-dose CT pelvimetry? Diagn Interv Imaging 99 (9): 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2018.02.008. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Barak M. 2020. Dosimetric evaluation of pelviscans in Togo. J Afr d’Imag Méd 12 (3): 133–137. [Google Scholar]
Ben Abdennebi A, Aubry S, Ounalli L, Fayache MS, Delabrousse E, Petegnief Y. 2017. Comparative dose levels between CT-scanner and slot-scanning device (EOS system) in pregnant women pelvimetry. Phys Med 33 (2016) 77–86 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.12.008. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Benameur Y, Najeh M, Tahiri M, Mkimel M, Baydaoui R. El, Hariri B. El, Mesradi MR, Hilali A, Saad E. 2023. Comparison of foetus organ dose and cancer risks in sequential and helical modes in CT pelvimetry for pregnant patients: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Onkol i Radioter 17 (2): 49–54. [Google Scholar]
Böttcher B, Radley SC. 2001. Pelvimetry: changing trends and attitudes. J Obstet Gynaecol 21 (5): 459–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610120071983. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Brent RL. 2009. Saving lives and changing family histories: appropriate counseling of pregnant women and men and women of reproductive age, concerning the risk of diagnostic radiation exposures during and before pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200 (1): 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.032. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cody DD, Kim HJ, Cagnon CH, Larke FJ, McNitt-Gray MM, Kruger RL, Flynn MJ, Seibert JA, Judy PF, Wu X. 2010. Normalized CT dose index of the CT scanners used in the national lung screening trial. Am J Roentgenol 194 (6): 1539–1546. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3268. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cristy MEKF. 1987. Specific Absorbed Fractions of Energy at Various Ages from Internal Photon Sources Oak Ridge National Laboratory. [Google Scholar]
Daghighi MH, Poureisa M, Ranjkesh M. 2013. Association between obstetric conjugate diameter measured by transabdominal ultrasonography during pregnancy and the type of delivery. Iran J Radiol 10 (3): 185–187. https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.13191. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Delchambre M. 2012. Calculation of the cumulative effective dose received by patients in diagnostic CT: creation of a software tool for general practitioners. human medicine and pathology. (dumas-00745007). [Google Scholar]
Étard C, Aubert B. 2009. Analysis of foetal dose assessed by IRSN from 2004 to 2008. Radioprotection 44 (4): 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2009018. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Fayolle S, Miloudi H, Gonzalez L, Rousselle I, Noel A, Amir S, Dufay F. 2017. A study to establish dose index registry for CT scan examinations. Radioprotection 52 (1): 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2017003. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
ICRP Publication 60. 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Ann ICRP 21 (1–3). (Vol. 6) [Google Scholar]
ICRP Publication 73. 1996. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. Ann ICR P 26. [Google Scholar]
ICRP Publication 105. 2007. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP 37 (Vol. 188) [Google Scholar]
IRSN. 2023. Analysis of Data for Updating Diagnostic Reference Levels in Radiology and Nuclear Medecine. [Google Scholar]
Jessen KA, Shrimpton PC, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G. 1999. Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. Appl Radiat Isot 50 (1): 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-8043(98)00024-4. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kitai T, Hyodo Y, Morikawa H. 2020. Development of CT pelvimetry using deep learning based reconstruction. Jpn J Radiol Technol 76 (1): 16–25. https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.2020_jsrt_76.1.16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Korhonen U, Solja R, Laitinenc J, Heinonen S, Taipalea P. 2010. MR pelvimetry measurements, analysis of inter- and intra-observer variation. Eur J Radiol 75 (2): e56–e61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.11.018. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lazarus E, DeBenedectis C, North D, Spencer PK, Mayo-Smith WW. 2009. Utilization of imaging in pregnant patients: 10-year review of 5270 examinations in 3285 patients − 1997-2006. Radiology 251 (2): 517–524. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2512080736. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Maldjian PD, Goldman AR. 2013. Reducing radiation dose in body CT: A primer on dose metrics and key CT technical parameters. Am J Roentgenol 200 (4): 741––747. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9768. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mokubangele CM, Ebongue AN, Bongue D, Ndontchueng MM, Moifo B. 2022. Evaluation of the fetal-maternal radiation doses in CT-pelvimetry and estimation of the fetal radiation risks in 03 radiology departments in douala-cameroon. Open J Radiol 12 (03): 113–124. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojrad.2022.123013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nagel HD. 2007. CT parameters that influence the radiation dose. In: Radiation Dose from Adult and Pediatric Multidetector Computed Tomography. Medical Radiology (D. Tack, P.A. Gevenois, Eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68575-3_4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Osei EK, Darko J. 2013. Foetal radiation dose and risk from diagnostic radiology procedures: a multinational study. Int Sch Res Notices 318425: 7, 2013. https://doi.org/10.5402/2013/318425. [Google Scholar]
Phexell E, Söderberg M, Bolejko A. 2018. Estimation of foetal radiation dose in a comparative study of pelvimetry with conventional radiography and different computer tomography methods. Int J Radiol Radiat Therapy 5 (4). https://doi.org/10.15406/ijrrt.2018.05.00171. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ray JG, Schull MJ, Urquia ML, You JJ, Guttmann A, Vermeulen MJ. 2010. Major radiodiagnostic imaging in pregnancy and the risk of childhood malignancy: a population-based cohort study in ontario. PLoS Med. 2010 Sep 7; 7(9): e1000337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000337.PMID:20838660;PMCID:PMC2935460. [Google Scholar]
Resten A, Mausoléo F, Suissa M, Valéro M, Taylor S, Musset D. 2001. Dosimetry comparison of pelvimetry methods using conventional radiographs and CT. J Radiol 82(9 Pt 1): 991–996. [Google Scholar]
Semghouli S, Amaoui B, Hakam OK, Choukri A. 2020. Radiation exposure during pelvimetry CT procedures in Ibn Sina Children’s Hospital of Rabat. Radiat Phys Chem 175 (December 2018): 108087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2018.12.007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shrimpton PC, Jessen KA, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G. 1998. Reference doses in computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 80 (1-3): 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032542. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sigmann MH, Delabrousse E, Riethmuller D, Runge M, Peyron C, Aubry S. 2014. An evaluation of the EOS X-ray imaging system in pelvimetry. Diagn Int Imaging 95 (9): 833–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2014.01.021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Stålberg K, Bodestedt Å, Lyrenäs S, Axelsson O. 2006. A narrow pelvic outlet increases the risk for emergency cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85 (7): 821–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340600593521. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Thibaut C, Marie-Anne O, Douws C, Grenier N, Chateil J. 2006. Interest of MDCT 40-row pelvimetry in dose reduction. J Radiol 87 (10): 1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0221-0363(06)87394-4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vistad I, Cvancarova M, Hustad BL, Henriksen T. 2013. Vaginal breech delivery: results of a prospective registration study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-153. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wiesen J, Ashmead G, Bellon M. 1991. Improvement in CT pelvimetry. Radiology 178 (1): 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984315.PMID:1984315 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Xie T, Poletti PA, Platon A, Becker CD, Zaidi H. 2018. Assessment of CT dose to the fetus and pregnant female patient using patient-specific computational models. Eur Radiol 28 (3): 1054–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5000-z. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.