Does reducing radiation levels for procedures affect image quality and radiation to proceduralists? A double-blinded randomised study of two protocols.

AIM: To evaluate the ultra-lose dose imaging protocol (ULDP), compared to the standard low-dose imaging protocol (LDP), which are used for haemodialysis access, in terms of radiation exposure and image quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, institutional review board-approved, prospective, double-blinded randomised controlled study to compare radiation exposure and image quality of the ULDP and LDP. Ten proceduralists, two radiographers, and 11 nurses were enrolled. Radiation exposure during 80 procedures (40 angioplasties and 40 thrombolysis) was recorded (direct radiation to patients from protocol report and scattered radiation to participants from the RaySafe i2 real-time dosimetry system). Baseline characteristics of procedure were recorded. Image quality was assessed subjectively using questionnaires based on the five-point Likert scale after each procedure. RESULTS: Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses (0.506±0.430 versus 0.847±0.965 µSv/s, p=0.044; 0.571±1.284 versus 1.284±1.007 mGy/s, p<0.001; and 0.052±0.071 versus 0.141±0.185 µSv/s, p=0.005, respectively). No significant difference in image quality or duration of procedure was observed (all p values >0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses without compromising the image quality or duration of procedure.

Eosinophilic granuloma affecting the parietal bone of the skull: A case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: The rare form and mildest variant of Langerhans cell histiocytosis is eosinophilic granuloma (EG). In the clinical presentation, EG can be monostotic, polyostotic, or can encompass many organs. The parietal bone is the most common location of the skull bones that are affected by EG. So far, there have been no reported cases of EG with skull odor as an unexplained presentation. CASE PRESENTATION: An 8-year-old girl presented with a 4 months history of a right parietal bone swelling of the skull with an offensive odor. There was no discharge and no history of vomiting or trauma. An MRI scan of the brain showed swelling with a bone lesion of the right parietal bone. Infection was the source of the swelling and the bad odor. Treatment was done by surgical excision of the lesion. CONCLUSION: EG has a variety of presentations and should be suspected when tenderness and local swelling are present. Radiography was found to be helpful in the diagnosis and surgical treatment was done to manage the case.