Literature DB >> 21547516

Assessment of patient doses in CR examinations throughout a large health region.

Yogesh Thakur1, Thorarin A Bjarnason, Kevin Hammerstrom, Lorie Marchinkow, Tim Koch, John E Aldrich.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21547516      PMCID: PMC3264727          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-011-9390-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  17 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

2.  Implementation of DRLs in the UK.

Authors:  B F Wall
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography.

Authors:  Michael Gruber; Martin Uffmann; Michael Weber; Mathias Prokop; Csilla Balassy; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-11       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Optimising automatic exposure control in computed radiography and the impact on patient dose.

Authors:  P Doyle; D Gentle; C J Martin
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography.

Authors:  P Doyle; C J Martin; D Gentle
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

6.  Use of TLD in evaluating diagnostic reference levels for some radiological examinations.

Authors:  D Berni; C Gori; B Lazzari; S Mazzocchi; F Rossi; G Zatelli
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  Are exposure index values consistent in clinical practice? A multi-manufacturer investigation.

Authors:  M L Butler; L Rainford; J Last; P C Brennan
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 0.972

8.  Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.

Authors:  Klaus Bacher; Peter Smeets; Kris Bonnarens; An De Hauwere; Koenraad Verstraete; Hubert Thierens
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography.

Authors:  John E Aldrich; Emerenciana Duran; Pat Dunlop; John R Mayo
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  Patient dosimetry measurements in 50 radiology departments in Belgium.

Authors:  D Dierckx; K Constales; N Gerardy; T Goegebuer; K Persyn
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2006-02-03       Impact factor: 0.972

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Patient-based radiographic exposure factor selection: a systematic review.

Authors:  William Ching; John Robinson; Mark McEntee
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-07
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.