Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2012

01.02.2012

Assessment of Patient Doses in CR Examinations Throughout a Large Health Region

verfasst von: Yogesh Thakur, Thorarin A. Bjarnason, Kevin Hammerstrom, Lorie Marchinkow, Tim Koch, John E. Aldrich

Erschienen in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Optimization and standardization of radiographic procedures in a health region minimizes patient exposure while producing diagnostic images. This report highlights the dose variation in common computed radiography (CR) examinations throughout a large health region. The RadChex cassette was used to measure the radiation exposure at the table or wall bucky in 20 CR rooms, in seven hospitals, using CR technology from two vendors. Exposures were made to simulate patient exposure (21 cm polymethyl methacrylate) under standard conditions for each bucky: 81 kVp at 100 cm for anteroposterior abdomen table bucky exposures (180 cm for posteroanterior chest wall bucky exposures), using the left, the right, or the center automatic exposure control (AEC) cells. Protocol settings were recorded. An average of 37% variation was found between AEC chambers, with a range between 4% and 137%. A 60% difference in dose was discovered between manufacturers, which was the result of the manufacture’s image processing algorithm and subsequently corrected via software updates. Finally, standardizing AEC cell selection during common chest examinations could reduce patient dose by up to 30%. In a large health region, variation in exam protocols can occur, leading to unnecessary patient dose from the same type of examination. Quality control programs must monitor exam protocols and AEC chamber calibration in CR to ensure consistent, minimal, patient dose, regardless of hospital or CR vendor. Furthermore, this report highlights the need for communication between radiologists, technologists, medical physicist, service engineers, and manufacturers required to optimize CR protocols.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Aldrich JE, Duran E, Dunlop P, Mayo JR: Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography. J Digit Imaging. 19:126–131, 2006PubMedCrossRef Aldrich JE, Duran E, Dunlop P, Mayo JR: Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography. J Digit Imaging. 19:126–131, 2006PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Berni D, Gori C, Lazzari B, Mazzocchi S, Rossi F, Zatelli G: Use of TLD in evaluating diagnostic reference levels for some radiological examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 101:411–413, 2002PubMed Berni D, Gori C, Lazzari B, Mazzocchi S, Rossi F, Zatelli G: Use of TLD in evaluating diagnostic reference levels for some radiological examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 101:411–413, 2002PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Dierckx D, Constales K, Gerardy N, Goegebuer T, Persyn K: Patient dosimetry measurements in 50 radiology departments in Belgium. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117:135–138, 2005PubMedCrossRef Dierckx D, Constales K, Gerardy N, Goegebuer T, Persyn K: Patient dosimetry measurements in 50 radiology departments in Belgium. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117:135–138, 2005PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, DeHauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H: Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Am J Roentgenology 181:923–929, 2003 Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, DeHauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H: Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Am J Roentgenology 181:923–929, 2003
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Butler ML, Rainford L, Last J, Brennan PC: Are exposure index values consistent in clinical practice? A multi-manufacturer investigation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 139(1–3):371–374, 2010PubMedCrossRef Butler ML, Rainford L, Last J, Brennan PC: Are exposure index values consistent in clinical practice? A multi-manufacturer investigation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 139(1–3):371–374, 2010PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Vano E, et al: Paediatric entrance doses from exposure index in computed radiography. Phys Med Biol 53:3365–3380, 2008PubMedCrossRef Vano E, et al: Paediatric entrance doses from exposure index in computed radiography. Phys Med Biol 53:3365–3380, 2008PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Doyle P, Gentle D, Martin CJ: Optimising automatic exposure control in computed radiography and the impact on patient dose. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:236–239, 2005CrossRef Doyle P, Gentle D, Martin CJ: Optimising automatic exposure control in computed radiography and the impact on patient dose. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:236–239, 2005CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Doyle P, Martin CJ, Gentle D: Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:269–272, 2005CrossRef Doyle P, Martin CJ, Gentle D: Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:269–272, 2005CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Safety Code 35: Radiation protection in radiology—large facilities, Health Canada., 2008 Safety Code 35: Radiation protection in radiology—large facilities, Health Canada., 2008
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Scanff P, Donadieu J, Pirard P, Aubert B: population exposure to ionizing radiation from medical examinations in France. BJR 81:204–213, 2008PubMedCrossRef Scanff P, Donadieu J, Pirard P, Aubert B: population exposure to ionizing radiation from medical examinations in France. BJR 81:204–213, 2008PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Mettler F, 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 253:520–531, 2009PubMedCrossRef Mettler F, 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 253:520–531, 2009PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Wall BF: Implementation of DRLs in the UK. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:183–187, 2005CrossRef Wall BF: Implementation of DRLs in the UK. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:183–187, 2005CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat D Hart et al: Doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK—1995 review, NRPB R286, 1996 D Hart et al: Doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK—1995 review, NRPB R286, 1996
14.
Zurück zum Zitat European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images, European Commission. 1995 European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images, European Commission. 1995
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Gray J, et al: Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology 235:354–358, 2005PubMedCrossRef Gray J, et al: Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology 235:354–358, 2005PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Shepard SJ, et al: An exposure indicator for digital radiography, Report of AAPM Task Group 116, 2009 Shepard SJ, et al: An exposure indicator for digital radiography, Report of AAPM Task Group 116, 2009
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Fernandez JM, Ordiales JM, Guibelalde E, Prieto C, Vano E: Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 129:140–143, 2008PubMedCrossRef Fernandez JM, Ordiales JM, Guibelalde E, Prieto C, Vano E: Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 129:140–143, 2008PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Gruber M, Uffmann M, Weber M, Prokop M, Balassy C, Schaefer-Prokop C: Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography. Eur Radiol 16:1544–1550, 2006PubMedCrossRef Gruber M, Uffmann M, Weber M, Prokop M, Balassy C, Schaefer-Prokop C: Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography. Eur Radiol 16:1544–1550, 2006PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu ZF, Nickoloff EL, So JC, Dutta AK: Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. Appl Clin Med Phys 4:91–98, 2003CrossRef Lu ZF, Nickoloff EL, So JC, Dutta AK: Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. Appl Clin Med Phys 4:91–98, 2003CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Compagnone G, Casadio Baleni M, Pagan L, Calzolaio FL, Barozzi L, Bergamini C: Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography. BJR 79:899–904, 2006PubMedCrossRef Compagnone G, Casadio Baleni M, Pagan L, Calzolaio FL, Barozzi L, Bergamini C: Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography. BJR 79:899–904, 2006PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Assessment of Patient Doses in CR Examinations Throughout a Large Health Region
verfasst von
Yogesh Thakur
Thorarin A. Bjarnason
Kevin Hammerstrom
Lorie Marchinkow
Tim Koch
John E. Aldrich
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2012
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Elektronische ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-011-9390-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.