Definitive diagnosis of Craniosynostosis (CS) with computed tomography (CT) is readily available, however, exposure to ionizing radiation is often a hard stop for parents and practitioners. Lowering head CT radiation exposure helps mitigate risks and improves diagnostic utilization. The purpose of the study is to quantify radiation exposure from head CT in patients with CS using a ‘new’ (ultra-low dose) protocol; compare prior standard CT protocol; summarize published reports on cumulative radiation doses from pediatric head CT scans utilizing other low-dose protocols. A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing surgical correction of CS, aged less than 2 years, between August 2014 and February 2022. Cumulative effective dose (CED) in mSv was calculated, descriptive statistics were performed, and mean ± SD was reported. A literature search was conducted describing cumulative radiation exposure from head CT in pediatric patients and analyzed for ionizing radiation measurements. Forty-four patients met inclusion criteria: 17 females and 27 males. Patients who obtained head CT using the ‘New’ protocol resulted in lower CED exposure of 0.32 mSv ± 0.07 compared to the prior standard protocol at 5.25 mSv ± 2.79 (p < 0.0001). Five studies specifically investigated the reduction of ionizing radiation from CT scans in patients with CS via the utilization of low-dose CT protocols. These studies displayed overall CED values ranging from 0.015 mSv to 0.77 mSv. Our new CT protocol resulted in 94% reduction of ionizing radiation. Ultra-low dose CT protocols provide similar diagnostic data without loss of bone differentiation in CS and can be easily incorporated into the workflow of a children’s hospital.

1. Sadigh G, Kadom N, Karthik P, et al. Noncontrast head CT in children: National variation in radiation dose indices in the United States. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2018; 39(8): 1400–1405. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5719

2. Jaskolka MS. Current controversies in metopic suture craniosynostosis. Oral & Maxillofac Surgery Clinics 2017; 29(4): 447–463. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2017.07.003

3. van der Meulen J. Metopic synostosis. Child’s Nervous System 2012; 28(9): 1359–1367. doi: 10.1007/s00381-012-1803-z

4. Beckett JS, Chadha P, Persing JA, et al. Classification of trigonocephaly in metopic synostosis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2012; 130(3): 442e–447e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dc244

5. Sharma RK. Craniosynostosis. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery 2013; 46(1): 18–27. doi: 10.4103/0970-0358.113702

6. Binaghi S, Gudinchet F, Rilliet B. Three-dimensional spiral CT of craniofacial malformations in children. Pediatric Radiology 2000; 30(12): 856–860. doi: 10.1007/s002470000343

7. Massimi L, Bianchi F, Frassanito P, et al. Imaging in craniosynostosis: When and what? Child’s Nervous System 2019; 35(11): 2055–2069. doi: 10.1007/s00381-019-04278-x

8. Bruce MK, Mittal AM, Whitt DS, et al. Computed tomography associated radiation exposure in children with craniosynostosis. Child’s Nervous System 2021; 37(8): 2635–2641. doi: 10.1007/s00381-021-05254-0

9. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: A retrospective cohort study. The Lancet 2012; 380(9840): 499–505. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0

10. Boice JD. Radiation epidemiology and recent paediatric computed tomography studies. Annals of the ICRP 2015; 44(1 Suppl): 236–248. doi: 10.1177/014664531557587

11. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: Data linkage study of 11 million Australians. The BMJ 2013; 346: f2360. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2360

12. Montoya JC, Eckel LJ, DeLone DR, et al. Low-dose CT for craniosynostosis: Preserving diagnostic benefit with substantial radiation dose reduction. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2017; 38(4): 672–677. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5063

13. Valentin J. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). Annals of the ICRP 2007; 37(1): 1–79. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.09.001

14. Kharita MH, Al-Naemi H, Arru C, et al. Relation between age and CT radiation doses: Dose trends in 705 pediatric head CT. European Journal of Radiology 2020; 130: 109138. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109138

15. Garzón WJ, Aldana DFA, Cassola VF. Patient-specific organ doses from pediatric head CT examinations. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2020; 191(1): 1–8. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncaa126

16. Jaramillo-Garzón W, Caballero MA, Alvarez-Aldana DF. Size-specific dose estimates for pediatric non-contrast head CT scans: A retrospective patient study in Tunja, Colombia. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2021; 193(3–4): 221–227. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncab051

17. Barreto IL, Tuna IS, Rajderkar DA, et al. Pediatric craniosynostosis computed tomography: An institutional experience in reducing radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality. Pediatric Radiology 2021; 52(1): 85–96. doi: 10.1007/s00247-021-05205-6

18. Ernst CW, Hulstaert TL, Belsack D, et al. Dedicated sub 0.1 mSv 3DCT using MBIR in children with suspected craniosynostosis: Quality assessment. European Radiology 2016; 26(3): 892–899. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3870-5

19. Vazquez JL, Pombar MA, Pumar JM, et al. Optimised low-dose multidetector CT protocol for children with cranial deformity. European Radiology 2013; 23(8): 2279–2287. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2806-1

20. Kaasalainen T, Palmu K, Lampinen A, et al. Limiting CT radiation dose in children with craniosynostosis: Phantom study using model-based iterative reconstruction. Pediatric Radiology 2015; 45(10): 1544–1553. doi: 10.1007/s00247-015-3348-2

21. Ling LLL, Fitt G, Begbie M, et al. Retrospective review of CT brain image quality, diagnostic adequacy and radiation dose in a paediatric population imaged at a non-paediatric tertiary hospital. Journal of Medical Imaging Radiation Oncology 2019; 63(5): 596–601. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12894

22. Eddy FK, Ngano SO, Jervé FA, et al. Radiation dose evaluation of pediatric patients in CT brain examination: Multi-center study. Scientific Reports 2021; 11(1): 4663. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84078-z

23. Jaffurs D, Denny A. Diagnostic pediatric computed tomographic scans of the head: Actual dosage versus estimated risk. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009; 124(4): 1254–1260. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b59d2d

24. Craven CM, Naik KS, Blanshard KS, et al. Multispiral three-dimensional computed tomography in the investigation of craniosynostosis: Technique optimization. The British Journal of Radiology 1995; 68(811): 724–730. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-811-724

25. Calandrelli R, D’Apolito G, Gaudino S, et al. Identification of skull base sutures and craniofacial anomalies in children with craniosynostosis: Utility of multidetector CT. La Radiologia Medica 2014; 119: 694–704. doi: 10.1007/s11547-014-0387-y

26. Zarei F, Mashayekhi Z, Chatterjee VV, et al. Evaluation of low-dose 3D skull CT images in craniosynostosis. Iranian Joural Medical Physics 2022; 19(4): 258–263. doi: 10.22038/IJMP.2021.59399.1997

27. Zarella C, Didier R, Bergquist C, et al. A reduction in radiation exposure during pediatric craniofacial computed tomography. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 2016; 27(2): 331–333. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002374

28. Hurlock GS, Higashino H, Mochizuki T. History of cardiac computed tomography: Single to 320-detector row multislice computed tomography. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 31–42. doi: 10.1007/s10554-008-9408-z

29. Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part 1. Description of system. The British Journal of Radiology 1973; 46(552): 1016–1022. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016

30. Schulz RA, Stein JA, Pelc NJ. How CT happened: The early development of medical computed tomography. Journal of Medical Imaging 2021; 8(5): 052110. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.8.5.052110

31. Garvey CJ, Hanlon R. Computed tomography in clinical practice. The BMJ 2002; 324: 1077. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7345.1077

32. National Institutes of Health. Next-generation CT scanner provides better images with minimal radiation. Available online: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/next-generation-ct-scanner-provides-better-images-minimal-radiation (accessed on 3 August 2022).

33. Hata A, Yanagawa M, Honda O, et al. Effect of matrix size on the image quality of ultra-high-resolution CT of the lung: Comparison of 512 × 512, 1024 × 1024, and 2048 × 2048. Academic Radiology 2018; 25(7): 869–876. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.11.017

34. Jinzaki M, Yamada Y, Nagura T, et al. Development of upright computed tomography with area detector for whole-body scans: Phantom study, efficacy on workflow, effect of gravity on human body, and potential clinical impact. Investigative Radiology 2020; 55(2): 73–83. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000603

35. Backgrounder on biological effects of radiation. Available online: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html (accessed on 17 July 2023).

36. Subpart C—Occupational dose limits. Available online: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1201.html (accessed on 17 July 2023).

37. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ. Estimated pediatric radiation dose during CT. Pediatric Radiology 2011; 41(Suppl 2): 472. doi: 10.1007/s00247-011-2179-z

38. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. American Journal of Roentgenology 2001; 176(2): 289–296. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289

39. Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, et al. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: Frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources—1950–2007. Radiology 2009; 253(2): 520–531. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2532082010

40. Kutanzi KR, Lumen A, Koturbash I, et al. Pediatric exposures to ionizing radiation: Carcinogenic considerations. International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health 2016; 13(11): 1057. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13111057

41. Hauptmann M, Byrnes G, Cardis E, et al. Brain cancer after radiation exposure from CT examinations of children and young adults: Results from the EPI-CT cohort study. The Lancet Oncology 2023; 24(1): 45–53. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00655-6

42. Yamasaki Y, Kamitani T, Sagiyama K, et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction for 320-detector row CT angiography reduces radiation exposure in infants with complex congenital heart disease. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 2021; 27(1): 42–49. doi: 10.5152/dir.2020.19633

43. Sun J, Yu T, Liu J, et al. Image quality improvement using model-based iterative reconstruction in low dose chest CT for children with necrotizing pneumonia. BMC Medical Imaging 2017; 17(1): 24. doi: 10.1186/s12880-017-0177-9