• Currently 4.03/5
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
  • 3
  • 3
  • 4
  • 4
  • 5
  • 5

Rating: 4.0/5 (35 votes cast)

Authors Institution
- -
Theme
Medical Physics
Assessment of Patients Radiation Dose In Common Radiographic examinations in Taif
Background

In the current era, radiological investigations play a central role in patient management worldwide. It has been estimated that 80 % of patients referred to hospitals need a radiographic examination. Protecting the patients during diagnostic procedure is an important responsibility of radiologic staff to keep radiation dose’s level as low as practicable. Aims: the current study , was aimed .to assess patients Entrance skin dose (ESD) in common diagnostic x-ray examinations in Saudi Arabia Taif city

Summary of Work

Methods and materials: the study was conducted in three different hospitals in Taif city, these hospitals indicated in this study as I, II and III, 221 images was performed in the aforementioned hospitals utilized dosage calculation, DOSCAL formula, data collection sheet was designed to record technique factor ( kVp, mAs ) and patients characteristic bio-data.

Table 1:X-ray machines characteristics

Hospital

unit type

Manufacturer

Maximum Kvp

Filtration mm Al and Al equivalent

Last Qc check

Installation

date

I

Stationary

GE Health Care

150

2.3

May 2017

2014

II

Major

Siemens

150

2.4

Sept 2016

2012

III

Fixed

Toshiba

150

2.9

June 2016

2013

 

Summary of Results

Table 2: statistic of ESDs for  investigations

Investigation

No

Frequency         %

Mean mGY

Max mGY

Min  mGY

±STD

Chest

63

28.5

0.23

0.35

0.15

0.103

Skull

11

4.9

0.85

1.29

0.70

0.19

Cervical Spine Lat

6

2.7

0.46

0.53

0.36

0.08

Dorsal Spine AP

6

2.7

2.85

4.26

2.33

1.06

Lumbar spine Lat

24

10.9

6.33

10.89

3.067

3.40

Pelvis

21

9.6

4.6

5.60

2.718

1.07

Hand

9

4.07

0.19

0.27

0.12

0.064

Arm

4

1.8

0.33

0.51

0.29

0.08

Forearm

8

3.63

0.49

0.54

0.40

0.04

Shoulder

10

4.52

0.74

1.03

0.67

0.30

Hip joint

7

3.17

2.37

3.10

1.62

0.74

femur

6

2.7

1.665

2.37

0.99

0.73

Knee

18

8.15

1.184

1.4

0.92

0.26

Leg

16

7.24

0.59

0.63

0.56

0.07

Foot and ankle

12

5.42

0.35

0.40

0.2997

0.05

total

221

100%

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Correlations of ESDs for DOSCAL and TLDs methods

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Comparison of ESDs in three hospitals for lumbo-sacral and pelvis investigations

 

Conclusion

Current study showed radiation doses for most x-ray examinations in Taif city. Found that the radiation doses were lowered compared to literature.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement: This study was funded with the support of Academic Research Centre (ARC) in Taif University, project number 1-438-5957. The authors wish to thank College of Applied Medical Sciences at Taif University. Also, all hospitals in Taif who shared in this project for their grateful and admirable communication

References

1.      M. Almalki, G. Fitzgerald and M. Clark. Health care system in Saudi Arabia: an overview. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. EMHJ • Vol. 17 No. 10 • 2011

2.      The world health report 2000. Health systems: improving per2. formance. Geneva, Word Health Organization, 2000.

3.      Archer, B. R. and Wagner, L. K. Protecting patients by training physicians in fluoroscopy radiation management. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 1(1), 32–37 (2000).DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v1i1.2653.

4.      Health statistical year book.6. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Health, 2012.

5.      International Commission of Radiological Protection.1990 Recommendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection. ICRP 60. Oxford: Pergamon Press,1991

6.      Berrington de Gonzales A, et al: Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009;169:2071-2077 .doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440.

7.      U.S. Food and Drug Administration, White Paper: Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure for medical imaging, February 16, 2010, http://www.fda.gov/RadiationEmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199904.htm(accessedNovember 1, 2017.

8.      American College of Radiology, “ACR Practice Guideline for Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical X-Ray Imaging,” 2002 (revised 2008).

9.      American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). AAPM Recommendations Regarding Notification and Alert Values for CT Scanners: Guidelines for Use of the NEMA XR 25 CT Dose-Check Standard. AAPM Dose Check Guidelines version 1.0, 04/27/2011. AAPM, 2011.

10.  National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States (2009). NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Md., 142-146

11.  Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Recommended Standards for the Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Systems. IPEM report 91. IPEM, 2005.

12.  IAEA. Radiological protection of patients in diagnostic and interventional radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Proceedings of an International Conference; 2001 March; Malaga, Spain. Vienna: IAEA.

13.  European Commission, “European Guidelines for Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography.” EUR 16262 EN. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2000.

14.  Hart D, Wall B.F., “U.K. Population Dose From Medical X-ray Examinations,” European Journal of Radiology, June 2004.DOI org/10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00178-5

15.  Shrimpton P.C., Wall B.F., Hart D., “Diagnostic Medical Exposures in the U.K.,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes, January 1999.

  1.  Sonawane AU, Shirva VK, Pradhan AS. Estimation of skin entrance doses (SEDs) for common medical X-ray diagnostic examinations in India and proposed diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) RadiatProtDosimetry. 2009;138:129–36. 
  2.  Sharma SD, Sharma R, Mulchandani U, Chaubey A, Chourasia G, Mayya YS. Measurement of entrance skin dose for diagnostic X-ray radiographic examinations and establishment of local diagnostic reference levels. In: Long M, editor. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering. IFMBE Proceedings. Vol. 39. 2012. pp. 860–63.
  3.  Sharma R. Entrance surface doses in majorly performed diagnostic X-ray examinations. J Med Phys. 2006;31:123–4.
  4.  Shrimpton PC, Wall BF, Jones DG, Fisher ES, Hillier MC, Kendall GM. London: NRPB-R200; 1986. A national survey of doses to patients undergoing a selection of routine X-ray examinations in English hospitals.
  5. Elhag BMA, Omer H, Sulieman A; Estimation of pediatric radiation doses in intravenous urography. Asian J Med Cli Sci., 2012; 1(1):4-8.
  6. Davies M, McCallum H, White G, Brown J, Helm M; Patient dose audit in diagnostic radiography using custom designed software. Radiography, 1997; 3(1): 17-25.
Designed & Managed by Innovative Technology®
Background
Summary of Work
Summary of Results
Conclusion
Acknowledgement
References
Send ePoster Link