Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Patient Radiation Doses assessment at Diagnostic X-rays Department of King Khalid hospital (KKH)-Majmaah

Author(s): Mohammed Khalil Saeed, Yousif Abdallah*, Abdelmonen Suilman, Mohamed Omer and Ali Sid Ahmed

Volume 20, 2024

Published on: 22 March, 2023

Article ID: e220323214857 Pages: 11

DOI: 10.2174/1573405619666230322102011

open_access

Abstract

Background: The study was conducted on patients who received diagnostic X-rays in King Khalid Hospital (KKH), Majmaah.

Introduction: The study included the seven most frequently performed investigations, which were carried out on over 1504 patients using digital radiography equipment.

Methods: The X-ray tube's output and exposure parameters were used to calculate the effective dose (ED) and patient entry surface air kerma (ESAK). Additionally, based on these results, conversion coefficients were determined. This study also examined the 75th percentile distributions of ESAK and KAP. The findings of this research were compared with the findings of other researchers throughout the country and the world. The study presents the uncertainty U values, as well as the mean ESAK, KAP, and ED values.

Results: The results of the ESAK, KAP, and ED values were 0.12-5.74 mGy, 0.9-1.84 Gy cm2, and 0.01-0.23 mSv, respectively. As a result, the dosages were much lower than those previously published for the European DRL, national standards, and other studies.

Conclusion: The study concludes that during dose surveys, the importance of detecting and comprehending radiation doses, as well as the proper technique for taking the finest photos possible, can be emphasized to patients in order to assist them in avoiding radioactive particles and radiation exposure.

Keywords: Radiation doses, Diagnostic, X-rays, Patient, Radiation, Dosage.

[1]
Efthymiou FO, Metaxas VI, Dimitroukas CP, Panayiotakis GS. Low BMI patient dose in digital radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimet 2020; 189(1): 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa007] [PMID: 32043128]
[2]
Vasileios IM, Gerasimos AM, Aristea NL, Theodore GP, George SP. Patient doses in common diagnostic x-rays examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimet 2019; 184(1): 12-27.
[PMID: 30289498]
[3]
Hendee WR, O’Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: Separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 2012; 264(2): 312-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112678] [PMID: 22821690]
[4]
Alqahtani SJM, Welbourn R, Meakin JR, et al. Increased radiation dose and projected radiation-related lifetime cancer risk in patients with obesity due to projection radiography. J Radiol Prot 2019; 39(1): 38-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/aaf1dd] [PMID: 30569898]
[5]
de Oliveira PMC, do Carmo Santana P, de Sousa Lacerda MA, da Silva TA. Radiation levels and image quality in patients undergoing chest X-ray examinations. Radiat Phys Chem 2017; 140: 305-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2016.12.016]
[6]
Mc Fadden S, Roding T, de Vries G, Benwell M, Bijwaard H, Scheurleer J. Digital imaging and radiographic practise in diagnostic radiography: An overview of current knowledge and practice in Europe. Radiography 2018; 24(2): 137-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2017.11.004] [PMID: 29605110]
[7]
Al-Murshedi S, Hogg P, England A. Relationship between body habitus and image quality and radiation dose in chest X-ray examinations: A phantom study. Phys Med 2019; 57: 65-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.12.009] [PMID: 30738533]
[8]
Alzyoud K, Hogg P, Snaith B, Flintham K, England A. Impact of body part thickness on AP pelvis radiographic image quality and effective dose. Radiography 2019; 25(1): e11-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.09.001] [PMID: 30599841]
[9]
Tsai HY, Yang CH, Huang KM, Li MJ, Tung CJ. Analyses of patient dose and image quality for chest digital radiography. Radiat Meas 2010; 45(3-6): 722-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2010.01.029]
[10]
International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment—part 2–44: particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. Geneva, Switzerland: IEC 2002; pp. 121-9.
[11]
Guidance on the establishment and use of diagnostic reference levels for medical X-ray examinations IPEM report no 88. York, UK: IPEM 2004; pp. 56-69.
[12]
Wall BF. Diagnostic reference levels in the X–ray department. Eur Radiol Suppl 2004; 14(S1): 66-73.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10406-004-0010-8]
[13]
McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boone JM, McNitt-Gray MF. CT dose index and patient dose: They are not the same thing. Radiology 2011; 259(2): 311-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101800] [PMID: 21502387]
[14]
Rizzo S, Kalra M, Schmidt B, et al. Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186(3): 673-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1513] [PMID: 16498094]
[15]
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004; 233(3): 649-57.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031150] [PMID: 15498896]
[16]
Treier R, Aroua A, Verdun FR, Samara E, Stuessi A, Trueb PR. Patient doses in CT examinations in Switzerland: Implementation of national diagnostic reference levels. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 142(2-4): 244-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq279] [PMID: 20926508]
[17]
Segota D, Diklic A, Jurkovic S. Establishment of local diagnostic reference levels for typical radiography examinations in the west region of Croatia. Nucl Technol Radiat Prot 2019; 34(1): 102-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/NTRP180831015S]
[18]
Ngaile JE, Msaki P, Kazema R. Towards establishment of the national reference dose levels from computed tomography examinations in Tanzania. J Radiol Prot 2006; 26(2): 213-25.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/26/2/006] [PMID: 16738417]
[19]
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004; 230(3): 619-28.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2303021726] [PMID: 14739312]
[20]
Friberg EG, Widmark A, Ryste Hauge IH. National collection of local diagnostic reference levels in Norway and their role in optimization of X-ray examinations. Osteras, Norway: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority 2009; pp. 68-78.
[21]
Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Notice of diagnostic reference levels for radiology and nuclear medicine examinations. Salzgitter, Germany: Federal Office for Radiation Protection 2010; pp. 112-26.
[22]
Karim M, Hashim S, Bakar K, et al. Establishment of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) reference level in Johor, Malaysia, 13th South-East Asian Congress of Medical Physics 2015 (SEACOMP). J Phys Conf Ser 2016; 694: 124-9.
[23]
UNSCEAR 2010 Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation United Nations Assem. New York. 2011; 65-81.
[24]
Coles DR, Smail MA, Negus IS, et al. Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47(9): 1840-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.11.078] [PMID: 16682310]
[25]
Qurashi A, Rainford L, Foley S. Establishment of diagnostic reference levels for CT trunk examinations in the western region of Saudi Arabia. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2015; 167(4): 569-75.
[26]
Foley SJ, McEntee MF, Rainford LA. Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland. Br J Radiol 2012; 85(1018): 1390-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/15839549] [PMID: 22595497]
[27]
Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 2006; 79(948): 968-80.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/93277434] [PMID: 17213302]
[28]
Zarb F, Rainford L, McEntee MF. AP diameter shows the strongest correlation with CTDI and DLP in abdominal and chest CT. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 140(3): 266-73.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq115] [PMID: 20332128]
[29]
van der Molen AJ, Schilham A, Stoop P, Prokop M, Geleijns J. A national survey on radiation dose in CT in The Netherlands. Insights Imaging 2013; 4(3): 383-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0253-9] [PMID: 23673455]
[30]
Christe A, Heverhagen J, Ozdoba C, Weisstanner C, Ulzheimer S, Ebner L. CT dose and image quality in the last three scanner generations. World J Radiol 2013; 5(11): 421-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v5.i11.421] [PMID: 24349646]
[31]
Rubin GD, Dake MD, Napel SA, McDonnell CH, Jeffrey RB Jr. Three-dimensional spiral CT angiography of the abdomen: Initial clinical experience. Radiology 1993; 186(1): 147-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.186.1.8416556] [PMID: 8416556]
[32]
Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008; 359(22): 2324-36.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0806576] [PMID: 19038879]
[33]
Biesbroek JM, Niesten JM, Dankbaar JW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CT perfusion imaging for detecting acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cerebrovasc Dis 2013; 35(6): 493-501.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000350200] [PMID: 23736122]
[34]
Ruzsics B, Lee H, Powers ER, Flohr TG, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Myocardial ischemia diagnosed by dual-energy computed tomography: Correlation with single-photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 2008; 117(9): 1244-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.745711] [PMID: 18316501]
[35]
Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: Value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166(1): 97-101.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.166.1.8571915] [PMID: 8571915]
[36]
Bushberg T, Seibert A, Leidholdt M. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott William and Wilkins 2003; pp. 102-23.
[37]
Dowd S, Tilson R. Practical Radiation Protection and Applied Radiobiology. (2nd ed.). Pennsylvania: Sunders Company 2009; pp. 122-32.
[38]
Edward J, Fawzy E, Kaczynski J. A comparative study of radiation dose and screening time between mini C-arm and standard fluoroscopy in elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Surg 2010; 105-44.
[PMID: 21276563]
[39]
Compagnone G, Baleni MC, 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. Br J Radiol 2006; 79(947): 899-904.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/57138583] [PMID: 17065288]
[40]
Hart D, Hillier M, Wall B. Dose to patients from medical x-ray /examinations in the UK-1995 review, NRPB-R289, London: HMSO. Henner Anja, Radiographer students learning dose management of the patients Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress. 14-8.
[41]
Henshaw P, Hawkins J. Incidence of leukemia in physicians. J Natl Cancer Inst Helsinki, Finland 2010; 4: 339-46.
[42]
Herrmann K, Bonél H, Stäbler A, et al. Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: Comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients. Eur Radiol 2002; 12(2): 385-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-001-1166-4] [PMID: 11870439]
[43]
Jones DG, Stoddart J. Radiation use in the orthopaedic theatre: A prospective audit. ANZ J Surg 1998; 68(11): 782-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04676.x] [PMID: 9814741]
[44]
Abu K, Loogane M, Rana M. A quantitative analysis of ionizing radiation exposure to the hands, thyroid and whole body of orthopaedic registrars At King Edward Viii Hospital during Fluoroscopic Internal Fixation of The Lower Limbs. J Al-Aqsa Unv 2006; 10 : 10-9.
[45]
Abdelhalim M. The formulation of local diagnostic reference levels for several diagnostic X-ray examinations at Security Forces Hospital in Riyadh (A survey for the doses received by patients undergoing diagnostic X-ray at Security Forces Hospital in Riyadh and identifying the factors required for lowering the patient doses). J Am Soc Hortic Sci 2013; 9: 36-43.
[46]
Abdelhalim M, Al-Ayed M. Assessment of patient doses levels during x-ray diagnostic imaging using TL dosimeters and comparison with local and international levels. Trends Med Res 2008; 3: 72-81.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/tmr.2008.72.81]
[47]
Vaño E, Miller L, Martin C. ICRP, Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. ICRP Publication 135. Ann ICRP 2017; 46: 1.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146645317717209] [PMID: 29065694]
[48]
Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and Interventional Procedures. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 2009; 39: p. 5.
[49]
ICRP. Avoidance of Radiation Injuries from Interventional Procedures; International Commission on Radiation Protection, ICRP Publication 85 Annals of the ICRP. Oxford: Pergman Press 2000; pp. 30-9.

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
37
2
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy