Literature DB >> 18777922

Consequences of modern anthropometric dimensions for radiographic techniques and patient radiation exposures.

Chintan Shah1, A Kyle Jones, Charles E Willis.   

Abstract

Radiographic techniques are devised on the basis of anatomic dimensions. Inaccurate dimensions can cause radiographs to be exposed inappropriately and patient radiation exposures to be calculated incorrectly. The source of anatomic dimensions in common usage dates back to 1948. The objective of this study was to compare traditional and modern anthropometric data, use modern dimensions to estimate potential errors in patient exposure, and suggest modified technique guidelines. Anthropometry software was used to derive modern anatomic dimensions. Data from routine annual testing were analyzed to develop an x-ray generator output curve. Published tabulated data were used to determine the relationship between tissue half-value layer and kilovoltage. These relationships were used to estimate entrance skin exposure and create a provisional technique guide. While most anatomic regions were actually larger than previously indicated, some were similar, and a few were smaller. Accordingly, exposure estimates were higher, similar, or lower, depending on the anatomic region. Exposure estimates using modern dimensions for clinically significant regions of the trunk were higher than those calculated with traditional dimensions. Exposures of the postero-anterior chest, lateral chest, antero-posterior (AP) abdomen, male AP pelvis, and female AP pelvis were larger by 48%, 31%, 54%, 52%, and 112%, respectively. The dimensions of bony regions of the anatomy, such as the joints and skull, were unchanged. These findings are consistent with the idea that anatomic areas where fat is deposited are larger in the modern U.S. population than they were in previous years. Exposure techniques for manual radiography and calculations of patient dose for automatic exposure control radiography should be adjusted according to the modern dimensions. Population radiation exposure estimates calculated in national surveys should also be modified appropriately.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18777922      PMCID: PMC4034413          DOI: 10.1118/1.2952361

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  5 in total

1.  Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact.

Authors:  Joel E Gray; Benjamin R Archer; Priscilla F Butler; Barry B Hobbs; Fred A Mettler; Robert J Pizzutiello; Beth A Schueler; Keith J Strauss; Orhan H Suleiman; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition.

Authors:  Mark B Williams; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Keith J Strauss; William K Breeden; Mark S Rzeszotarski; Kimberly Applegate; Margaret Wyatt; Sandra Bjork; J Anthony Seibert
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Relationship of tissue thickness to kilovoltage.

Authors:  A W FUCHS
Journal:  Xray Tech       Date:  1948-05

4.  A patient-equivalent attenuation phantom for estimating patient exposures from automatic exposure controlled x-ray examinations of the abdomen and lumbo-sacral spine.

Authors:  B J Conway; J E Duff; T R Fewell; R J Jennings; L N Rothenberg; R C Fleischman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1990 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Beam quality independent attenuation phantom for estimating patient exposure from x-ray automatic exposure controlled chest examinations.

Authors:  B J Conway; P F Butler; J E Duff; T R Fewell; R E Gross; R J Jennings; G H Koustenis; J L McCrohan; F G Rueter; C K Showalter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1984 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.071

  5 in total
  3 in total

1.  Portable abdomen radiography: moving to thickness-based protocols.

Authors:  Adrian A Sánchez; Ingrid Reiser; Tina Baxter; Yue Zhang; Joshua H Finkle; Zheng Feng Lu; Kate A Feinstein
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-11-12

2.  Patient-Based Dose Audit for Common Radiographic Examinations With Digital Radiology Systems: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Khalid M Alshamrani; Abdulkader A Alkenawi; Bushra N Alghamdi; Rawan H Honain; Haneen A Alshehri; Marwah O Alshatiri; Noor Mail; Ahmed Subahi; Shaza S Alsharif; Abdulaziz A Qurashi; Shrooq Aldahery; Reham Kaifi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-05-13

3.  Evaluation of a commercial cardiac motion phantom for dual-energy chest radiography.

Authors:  Ching-Yi Hsieh; Gregory Gladish; Charles E Willis
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.102

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.