Comparison of incident air kerma (k_i) of common digital and analog radiology procedures in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province

• Autorzy: Vafapour H. , Salehi Z.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/pjmpe-2018-0006

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Introduction: Although in many developed countries, Analog radiography (AR) is replaced with digital radiography (DR) but AR is still widely used in many countries included Iran. Therefore, dosimetrically assessment of delivered dose is very important to avoid unnecessary patient dose. Materials and Methods: In this study, all imaging centers in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad were selected. The initial information included the mean kVp and mAs used by the personnel to perform each radiological procedure were gathered through a questionnaire. Barracuda dosimeter was then used to measure Incident air kerma (k_i). Data obtained from digital radiography (DR) and analogue radiography (AR) were then analyzed and compared to each other. Results: The mean incident air kerma (k_i) for five radiological procedures (chest AP&Lat, Skull AP&Lat, Lumbar spine AP&Lat, Thoracic spine AP&Lat and Pelvis) in digital devices were 0.38&1.34, 2.1&1.94, 4.99&7.83, 4.18& 6.41 and 4.33 mGy and those for analogue devices were 0.7&1.28, 3.05&3.02, 7.25&9.9, 7.125&8.36 and 5.36 mGy, respectively. Discussion and Conclusion: The use of low kVp or high mAs is one of the reasons to increase the incident air kerma (k_i) in analogue methods comparing to digital methods in all procedures except the chest (in Lateral view). Also the results, surprisingly, showed that in some of the analogue methods incident air kerma (k_i) was less than digital methods which is most probably because of the auto-exposure conditions.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

air kerma; digital radiography; AR; analog radiography; DR

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Fizyki Medycznej ; De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 24, Iss. 1
• Strony: 37--41
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 26 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Vafapour H.

• Department of Radiation Sciences, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran

autor

Salehi Z.

• Department of Radiation Sciences, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran

Bibliografia

• [1] Huda W, Nickoloff EL, Boone JM. Overview of patient dosimetry in diagnostic radiology in the USA for the past 50 years. Med. Phys. 2008;35(12): 5713-5728.
• [2] Bahreyni Toossi MT, Esmaili S. Estimation of entrance surface doses (ESD) for common medical X-ray diagnostic examinations in radiological departments in Mashhad-Iran. In Shielding aspects of accelerators, targets and irradiation facilities-Satif-10. Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD (NEA): Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development - Nuclear Energy Agency. 2010.
• [3] Bouzarjomehri F, Dashti M, Zare M. Radiation exposure of the Yazd population from medical conventional X-ray examinations. Iran J Radiat Res. 2007;4(4):195-200.
• [4] Bouzarjomehri F. Patient dose in routine X-ray examinations in Yazd state. Iran J Radiat Res. 2004;1(4):199-204.
• [5] Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. EurJ Radiol. 2009;72(2): 202-208.
• [6] Cousins C, Miller DL, Bernardi G, et al. ICRP Publication 120: Radiological protection in cardiology. Ann ICRP. 2013;42(1):1-125.
• [7] Salehi Z, Kamil WA. Biswal BM, et al. Monte Carlo radiography simulation for assessment of absorbed radiation dose in femur bone marrow during X-ray radiography for constant mAs and AEC technique. Int J Radiat Res. 2015;13(1):61-65.
• [8] Ofori K, Wotorchi-Gordon S, Akrobortu E, et al. Estimation of adult patient doses for selected X-ray diagnostic examinations. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2014;7(4): 459-462.
• [9] Radiation Protection No 18: Medical Radiation Exposure of the European Population. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
• [10] Salehi Z, Yusoff AL. The absorbed dose in femur exposed to diagnostic radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2013;154(3):396-399.
• [11] Strauss KJ, Kaste SC. The ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) Concept in Pediatric Interventional and Fluoroscopic Imaging: Striving to Keep Radiation Doses as Low as Possible during Fluoroscopy of Pediatric Patients -- A White Paper Executive Summary. Radiology. 2006;240(3):621-622.
• [12] Berkhout WE, Beuger DA, Sanderink GC, et al. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(1):1-5.
• [13] Osei EK, Darko J. A survey of organ equivalent and effective doses from diagnostic radiology procedures. ISRN Radiol. 2012;2013:204346.
• [14] Ramanandraibe MJ, Randriamora TH; Ralaivelo MAL, et al. Patient Doses Assessment for Conventional Radiography in Madagascar. Pharmaceutical and Chemical Journal, 2(3):1-5.
• [15] Aliasgharzadeh A, Mihandoost E, Masoumbeigi M, et al. Measurement of Entrance Skin Dose and Calculation of Effective Dose for Common Diagnostic X-Ray Examinations in Kashan, Iran. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;7(5):202–207.
• [16] Johnston DA, Brennan PC. Reference dose levels for patients undergoing common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Irish hospitals. Br J Radiol. 2000;73(868):396-402.
• [17] Hart D, Hillier M, Wall B. National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic and dental X-ray examinations in the UK. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):1-12.
• [18] Parry RA, Glaze SA, Archer BR. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: typical patient radiation doses in diagnostic radiology. Radiographics. 1999;19(5):1289-1302.
• [19] Webb S. The physics of medical imaging. 1988: CRC Press.
• [20] Yukihara EG, McKeever SWS, Akselrod MS. State of art: optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry–frontiers of future research. Radiat Meas. 2014;71:15-24.
• [21] Wambani JS, Korir GK, Korir IK, et al., Establishment of local diagnostic reference levels in paediatric screen-film radiography at a children's hospital. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012;154(4):465-476.
• [22] Lau SL, Mak AS, Lam WT, et al. Reject analysis: A comparison of conventional film-screen radiography and computed radiography with PACS. Radiography. 2004;10(3):183-187.
• [23] Piraino D, Davros WJ, Lieber M, et al. Selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography of the hands and feet: a subjective comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199;172(1):177-184
• [24] Honey ID, Mackenzie A, Evans DS. Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film–screen and computed radiography. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(929):422-427.
• [25] Schaefer-Prokop C, Uffmann M, Eisenhuber E, et al. Digital radiography of the chest: detector techniques and performance parameters. J Thorac Imaging. 2003;18(3):124-137.
• [26] Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P, et al. On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys. 2003;30(7):1719-1731.