tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post1711840163695660019..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: Treating Concussions in ChildrenJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-43689506352608099772018-09-20T15:34:56.519-04:002018-09-20T15:34:56.519-04:00I couldn't find anything freely available thro...I couldn't find anything freely available through the link that explains what age groups they're talking about. "Children" is just such an incredibly broad category.<br /><br />I would imagine the considerations would be vastly different based on whether you're dealing with a 4 year old patient, an 8 year old, a 12 year old, et cetera. Even if we assume that "teenagers" are a separate category, that still leaves us with eleven year olds who shouldn't really be finding a CT scan "incredibly scary", and whose physiology should be far more than robust enough to handle a simple x-ray without any real concern.<br /><br /><i>(On average, medical scans account for only 15% of annual ionizing radiation exposure; 85% comes from simple natural background radiation, up to 100% if you don't get any scans during the year. In particular, it should be noted that x-rays themselves are incredibly benign compared to CT scans - and even the most intensive of CT scans barely creeps into the single digit milliseiverts. Unless you're literally getting dozens of CT chest scans per year, there will be no measurable effect. In contrast, a single CT head scan in the wake of a concussion is utterly insignificant.)</i><br /><br />All of that said, perhaps they aren't trying to suggest that the radiation from a CT scan isn't, in fact, neglible? Perhaps they're simply emphasizing how little use such scans actually are in diagnosis and treatment of a concussion? That, at least, I could believe.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com