ISPN
Visitors
76076
September
23
Journals A - Z
A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z    ALL
All Volumes

RADIATION DOSE SURVEY IN CONVENTIONAL PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY

How to cite

K E M Mohamadain,A C P Azevedo,2009, RADIATION DOSE SURVEY IN CONVENTIONAL PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY,Journal of Science and Technology,10 (2) ,pp:175-184

Authors:
By K E M Mohamadain,A C P Azevedo,
Year:
2009
Keywords
Entrance Skin Dose, DoseCal software, Effective Dose, Pediatric Radiology
Abstract
A survey of some conventional radiographic techniques, Entrance Surface Dose (ESD) and Effective Dose (ED) for pediatrics has been carried out for 811 patients undergoing five different examinations for mobile and conventional (fixed) X ray equipment. For the fixed equipment, the examinations were: abdomen, chest, cervical spine, skull and lumbar spine, for different projections AP, PA and LAT in a total of 432 patients. For the mobile equipment, a similar study was performed for 379 patients and for two examinations: abdomen and chest for the AP projection only. The pediatric hospital was the Instituto Fernandes Figueira (IFF) from FIOCRUZ (Brazil). For each examination, 4 different age groups 0-1, 1-5, 5-10 and 10-15 years were studied for both types of equipments. Results can be compared for abdomen AP and chest AP only, because were the only kind of examinations performed with both types of equipment. The mean ESD (mGy) and ED (mSv) were calculated using the DoseCal software. For chest examination in AP the ESD for fixed and mobile X ray equipment for the 0-1 age group were 67mGy and 39mGy respectively. For abdomen AP, results were: 242mGy for fixed and 57mGy for mobile equipment. Similarly, the ED values for different types of equipment for chest AP were 12mSv (fixed) and 8mSv (mobile). For abdomen, results were 53mSv and 13mSv (fixed and mobile), respectively. It can be seen that all results for the fixed equipment are systematically higher.
الملخص
لقد تم في هذه الدراسة مسح إشعاعي لقياس كل من الجرعة السطحية والجرعة الفعالة للأطفال جرت الدراسة علي 811 طفل لخمسة فحوصات مختلفة وهي تشخيص البطن, الصدر,الرأس, والعمود الفقري في اتجاهات أمامي خلفي ,خلفي أمامي وجانبي وشملت الدراسة أجهزة الأشعة السينية الثابتة والمحمولة (موبايل) وتمت هذه الدراسة بقسم الأطفال بمستشفي فرنان فيقاريا 15 سنة - 10 و 10 - 5 و 5 - 1 و 1 - بالبرازيل وقد أخزت أعمار الأطفال في مجموعات من عمر 0 وحسب متوسط الجرعة السطحية والفعالة لكل مجموعة بواسطة برنامج كمبيوتر مخصص لهذه القياسات 242 و mGy و 57 mGy وقد وجد أن لتشخيص الصدر أمامي خلفي الجرعة السطحية تتراوح 67 لأجهزة الأشعة الثابتة و لأجهزة الموبايل علي mGy 39 mGy لتشخيص البطن أمامي خلفي 12 و mSv التوالي وبالنسبة للجرعة الفعالة لتشخيص البطن أمامي خلفي تراوحت القيم بين 53 أثبتت الدراسة أن الجرعة السطحية mSv 13mSv وجد لتشخيص الصدر أمامي mSv8 والفعالة للأجهزة الثابتة اعلي من أجهزة الموبايل
References:
  1. Diretrizes de Proteção Radiológica em Radiodiagnóstico Médico Odontológico, (1998). Portaria 453 do Ministério da Saúde, D O U 103, Pp 01/06/98.
  2. Leitlinien B.Ä.K. der Bundesärztekammer Z.U.R, (1989). Qualitätssicherung in der Röntgendiagnostik. D.A.Deutsches Ärzteblatt Vol.86, Pp 1437-1444.
  3. Sicherung D.E.R, Bildqualität in Röntgendiagnostischen Betrieben; (1985). Allgemeines (Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin) DIN Pp 66\\81.
  4. Stender, H.S. and Stieve, F.E. (1986). Praxis der Qualitätskontrolle in der Röntgendiagnostik (Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart – New York).
  5. Da Silva, E.T., (1999). Avaliação de Doses em Radiodiagnóstico Pediátrico M. Sc. Thesis COPPE / UFRJ /Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
  6. Fendel, H., Schneider, K., Schöfer, H., Bakowski, C. and Kohn, M. M. E, B. M.Moore et al,(1985). Optimisation in Pediatric Radiology. (British Institute of Radiology London:). BIR Vol.18 Pp. 159 – 165.
  7. Fendel, H., (1990).Symposium: The Status of Paediatric Radiology in Europe. The Principles for Rational Use and Optimisation of Diagnostic Imaging in Paediatrics. 27th Congress of ESPR, Munich .
  8. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Sources: (2000). Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 Report, vol. II: effects. New York, NY: United Nations.
  9. Shrimpton P.C., Wall B.F., Jones D.C., et al. (1986). A national survey of doses to patients undergoing a selection of routine X ray exposures in English hospitals.NRPB – R 200- London: HMTO.
  10. Faulkner K, Corbett R.H. (1998). Reference doses and quality in medeical imaging. British Journal of Radiology;Vol.71:1 Pp 2-10.
  11. Contento G, Malisan M.R, Padovani. R. et al, .(1998). A comparison of diagnostic radiology practice and patient exposures in Britain, France and Italy. British Journal of Radiology;Vo;61:1 Pp 43-52
  12. Warren-Forward H.M., Millan J.S., (1995). Optimizqation of Radiological technique for chest radiography. Br J Radiol; 68:1 Pp 12-19.
  13. Wall B.F. (1996). Reference Doses For Diagnostic Medical Exposures. Rad Mag ; Pp 22-29.
  14. Rassiah. P, Ng K . H., Wang H . B et al. (1998). Doses to patients in routine X ray examinations in Malaysia. British Journal of Radiology;Vol;71:6 Pp 54-60
  15. Schneiden, K. (1995). Evaluation of Quality Assurance in Pediatric Radiology., Radiation Protection Dosimetery Vol.57, Pp 119-123
  16. Almenand, A. S. Mattsson, (1995). Dose Distribution in Children at Chest Radiology. Radiation Protection Dosimetery Vol.57, Pp 463-467.
  17. JGeleijns, J. Broerse,M Van Vilet, (2000). Assessment of effective dose in pediatric radiology :A survey at 14 Dutch hospitals , Radiation Protection Dosimetery Vol 90, Pp 135-140
  18. Lopez, M. J. J Morant, K.Geleijns and A Calzados, (2000). A Regional Dose and Image Quality Survey For chest, Abdomen and Pelvis Radiographs in Pediatrics. Radiation Protection Dosimetery Vol 90,Pp 275-278
  19. Martin C.J, Darraigh C.L, McKenzie G.A, Bayliss A.P. (1993). Implementation of a programme for reduction of radiation doses and results achieved through increases in tube potential. British Journal of RadiologyVol;66:2 Pp.28-33.
  20. Hart. D., Shrimpton P.C. (1991).The significance of patient weight when comparing X ray room performance against guideline levels of dose.British Journal of RadiologyVol;64: Pp 7-12
  21. CEC-European (1996).Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images. EUR 16260EN. The European Commission,
  22. Warren-Forward H.M, (1991). Patient dosimetry during chest radiography.Radiation Protection DosimetryVol ;57: Pp 41-44.
  23. NRPB. (1990). Patient dose reduction in diagnostic radiology. NRPB 1,no. 3. London:HM50.
  24. Kyriou, J. C. V. Newey, M. C. Fitzgerald. (2000). Patient Doses in Diagnostic Radiology at the Touch of a Button. The Radiological Protection Centre, St. George’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
  25. Cook J.V, Shah. K, Pablot S., Kyriou J., Pellet A., Fitzgerald, M. (1998). Guidelines on best practice in the X ray imaging of children. London.St. George’s Hospital & St. Helier Hospital.
» Download Full Text: