Are CT Scans Safe

[classic33]

Chapter and verse with dose comparisons

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/?pg=sfty_xray

As given above under CT Scan Radiation Risk!

 

[vickster]

I had one twenty years ago when I had a horrendously prolapsed disc in my back. In those days it was a real privilege to be invited to slide into the tube. I seem to have survived. Don't worry about it.

Ditto here...I was off my face on morphine at the time, so don't remember anything much of the experience!

I have had many dental and other X Rays this year (most recently on Saturday), and am having an MRI on Thursday. I also fly a fair amount for work/holidays and figure any radiation from imaging is less than that from being in an airplane (in 2012, I probably made 15-20 return flights various)

Personally, I'd rather have the imaging so the tooth butcher / doctors know what's going on, rather than poking around blind or having to do something more invasive / surgical

 

[swansonj]

Ditto here...I was off my face on morphine at the time, so don't remember anything much of the experience!

I have had many dental and other X Rays this year (most recently on Saturday), and am having an MRI on Thursday. I also fly a fair amount for work/holidays and figure any radiation from imaging is less than that from being in an airplane (in 2012, I probably made 15-20 return flights various)

Personally, I'd rather have the imaging so the tooth butcher / doctors know what's going on, rather than poking around blind or having to do something more invasive / surgical

Minor point of information: dose of IONISING radiation from an MRI = zero.

Indeed, when the EU brought in occupational exposure limits to NON-IONISING radiation a few years ago, which could have jeopardised some MRI because the nurses and technicians would have been exposed when they approached the bore to help a patient, one of the arguments the MRI community used to lobby against them was that if they couldn't do MRI they'd have to do CT scans instead, which would have increased the risk to patients (albeit not by much - see multiple posts above). They won - the revised Directive has a derogation for MRI.

 

[The Jogger]

Based on what I've read on here and a quick chat with Mrs J I will go ahead with the scan, you have all been very helpful.
Thanks
J

 

[e-rider]

Ditto here...I was off my face on morphine at the time, so don't remember anything much of the experience!

I have had many dental and other X Rays this year (most recently on Saturday), and am having an MRI on Thursday. I also fly a fair amount for work/holidays and figure any radiation from imaging is less than that from being in an airplane (in 2012, I probably made 15-20 return flights various)

Personally, I'd rather have the imaging so the tooth butcher / doctors know what's going on, rather than poking around blind or having to do something more invasive / surgical

dental x-rays using modern equipment are very low dose - I was getting concerned after having about 30 images over a 10 year period due to continuing problems but actually the radiation turned out to be the least of my worries.

 

[slowmotion]

Random useless fact alert!
In the mid to late 1950s, shoe shops had X ray machines so that prospective buyers could see their feet and bones inside their new shoes. I remember them as a small child. They were entirely unregulated, as far as I know. Shoe shop sales people had a high incidence of cancer due to excessive levels of radiation exposure. My parents were both medics with an understanding of the risk and banned me from ever using one. I really wouldn't worry about a CT scan. A fortnight in a Cornish holiday cottage is probably far more risky.
[media]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVlEXd9w7vk
[/media]

 

[MartinQ]

I will go ahead with the scan

Also has the advantage that your natural glow after the scan means you won't need any high-viz clothing for a while

 

[swansonj]

Random useless fact alert!
In the mid to late 1950s, shoe shops had X ray machines so that prospective buyers could see their feet and bones inside their new shoes. I remember them as a small child. They were entirely unregulated, as far as I know. Shoe shop sales people had a high incidence of cancer due to excessive levels of radiation exposure. My parents were both medics with an understanding of the risk and banned me from ever using one. I really wouldn't worry about a CT scan. A fortnight in a Cornish holiday cottage is probably far more risky.

That's a new one to me - evidence? Even with high dose occauptional groups, the excess risk of cancer is still quite small, so you need large studies to detect it, and I'd be surprised if there were enough shoe shop sales people, or that anyone had found a way to track them.

 

[classic33]

That's a new one to me - evidence? Even with high dose occauptional groups, the excess risk of cancer is still quite small, so you need large studies to detect it, and I'd be surprised if there were enough shoe shop sales people, or that anyone had found a way to track them.

See Shoe Fitting Fluoroscope
@slowmotion must be older than he's letting on!

 

[Pumpkin the robot]

I think in the last year I have had 4 CT scans and 5 xrays. Have to stop having these accidents!

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Oh, and I asked the radiographer about allergic reactions to contrast dye. I was told not to worry about it. I found out later that my brother-in-law had nearly died from an adverse reaction when he was scanned!

When I had mine recently I was curious as to why they left the cannula in for so long and so asked. Was told that it was so they had a quick point of entry if you had an allergic reaction to the contrast, and they sit you around for 20 minutes to make sure you aren't going to (although most reactions happen a lot quicker.) Allegedly my CT scan was to prove they hadn't missed anything obvious in what they were looking for (rather than to find anything specific out).

 

[swansonj]

See Shoe Fitting Fluoroscope
@slowmotion must be older than he's letting on!

Well, at risk of turning into one of those pedants who spin threads out ad nauseam by harping on about the same point, that link doesn't say anything about cancer risk in shoe shop staff.....

 

[The Jogger]

Had this today, no injections just had to drink half a jug of water and less than five minutes on the table, quite glad I went ahead with it. Thanks all.

 

[gbb]

Thank you all veris much for taking the time to reply to my query/worry. It has been really informative and reassuring. Lets hope the head can rationalise all this and calm down. Just received a copy of the letter from my consultant to my GP saying reason for CT is because of my history of kidney stones, the pain in the side and neither x ray or ultrasound could detect a stone.

The only trouble with most peoples experiences of scans and Xrays, logically, you will not know what effect it may or may not have for decades in all probability.
2 CTscans in the last 18 months, one with dye and possibly 6 xrays, mostly for TB, pneumonia and pleural thickening.. I accept they have definately aided my diagnosis and treatment, but I hope there are no longer term implications.
Im sure my exposure is piffling compared to some, I dont lose any sleep over it, but every time I have another one...I wished I didnt have to.

 

[ufkacbln]

Oh, and I asked the radiographer about allergic reactions to contrast dye. I was told not to worry about it. I found out later that my brother-in-law had nearly died from an adverse reaction when he was scanned!

When I had mine recently I was curious as to why they left the cannula in for so long and so asked. Was told that it was so they had a quick point of entry if you had an allergic reaction to the contrast, and they sit you around for 20 minutes to make sure you aren't going to (although most reactions happen a lot quicker.) Allegedly my CT scan was to prove they hadn't missed anything obvious in what they were looking for (rather than to find anything specific out).

The problem is how much you tell the patient

If you tell the patient "I am about to give you an injection that may kill you" then there is obviously going to be a lot of concern, anxiety and probably a cancellation

However if you have checked the patient's risks (iodine allergy, use of metformin, asthma) and associated indicators, and reduced these, then the chances of a reaction are very low.

In this case the benefit of telling the patient is far outweighed by the worry and concern you will cause



The other point is that diagnostic imaging has two possible outcomes, to confirm or disprove a diagnosis. Quite often the clinical presentation of an illness has several possible diagnoses.

Although a CT scan not finding anything seems to be an unnecessary radiation dose, the fact that you have excluded a particular illness enables the proper diagnosis and hence still justifies the dose to the patient