Radiation Risk of Medical Imaging During Pregnancy
Which radiology tests are absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy? No radiological examination is absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy. As there are no…Read more
A signed request from a referring clinician with appropriate and relevant clinical details.
None. A plain X-ray is a low dose examination that is cheap and readily available. The small risk must be weighed up against the benefit.
Pregnancy or weight of patient (X-ray tables have weight limits).
No short term effects. Generally speaking, the benefit of the X-ray procedure is far more important than the small estimated risk (see Radiation risk of medical imaging for adults and children). At the dose levels that are utilised in diagnostic radiography there is little or no evidence of health effects (ARPANSA 2008).
According to ARPANSA (2008) “There is good epidemiological evidence – especially from studies of the survivors of the atomic bombings – that, for several types of cancer, the risk increases roughly linearly with dose”. At low dose levels (like that in diagnostic radiography), the risk is cancer or heritable mutations and no such risk has yet been demonstrated in Japanese bomb survivors who received radiation doses comparable to those delivered by plain X-rays or radiographs. There have been no large scale longitudinal studies of people exposed to diagnostic X-rays that would allow an accurate assessment of risk to be made.
For most plain radiographs/X-rays, the radiation dose is no more than the ionising radiation from normal environmental background over a period of one year. The dose is considerably higher for CT scanning, angiography, and some fluoroscopy procedures. However, the minimal risk of exposure to any type of medical ionising radiation needs to be weighed against the potential gain from the diagnostic information provided by the X-ray.
Yes. Ultrasound and MRI don’t utilise radiation and therefore may be an alternative. Alternatives to exposure to ionising radiation may be available but are not always appropriate. Radiologists have expert knowledge of which imaging test is best suited to answer a clinical question and if there is any doubt, a radiologist should be consulted. For example, an ultrasound may be a better test than an X-ray or plain radiograph to locate a non-metallic foreign body in the foot, even though the technology is fundamentally different and ultrasound does not use ionising radiation at all.
A radiologist should be consulted for more information.
The following websites are helpful sources of information:
Page last modified on 17/10/2016.
RANZCR® is not aware that any person intends to act or rely upon the opinions, advices or information contained in this publication or of the manner in which it might be possible to do so. It issues no invitation to any person to act or rely upon such opinions, advices or information or any of them and it accepts no responsibility for any of them.
RANZCR® intends by this statement to exclude liability for any such opinions, advices or information. The content of this publication is not intended as a substitute for medical advice. It is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient and his/her doctor. Some of the tests and procedures included in this publication may not be available at all radiology providers.
RANZCR® recommends that any specific questions regarding any procedure be discussed with a person's family doctor or medical specialist. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, RANZCR®, its Board, officers and employees assume no responsibility for its content, use, or interpretation. Each person should rely on their own inquires before making decisions that touch their own interests.