Literature DB >> 30289498

PATIENT DOSES IN COMMON DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY EXAMINATIONS.

Vasileios I Metaxas1, Gerasimos A Messaris1, Aristea N Lekatou1, Theodore G Petsas2, George S Panayiotakis1.   

Abstract

A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality.
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30289498     DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncy169

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry        ISSN: 0144-8420            Impact factor:   0.972


  3 in total

1.  Local diagnostic reference levels for routine chest X-ray examinations at a public sector hospital in central South Africa.

Authors:  Maurice Junda; Henra Muller; Hesta Friedrich-Nel
Journal:  Health SA       Date:  2021-08-17

2.  Is It Possible to Replace Conventional Radiography (CR) with a Dose Neutral Computed Tomography (CT) of the Cervical Spine in Emergency Radiology-An Experimental Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Zsuzsanna Deak; Lindis Brummund; Sonja Kirchhoff; Markus Körner; Lucas Geyer; Fabian Mück; Mariano Scaglione; Maximilian Reiser; Ulrich Linsenmaier
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-02

3.  Appraisal of the New Posture Analyzing and Virtual Reconstruction Device (PAViR) for Assessing Sagittal Posture Parameters: A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Chan Woong Jang; Jihyun Park; Han Eol Cho; Jung Hyun Park
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 4.614

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.