Effective dose during abdominal three-dimensional imaging with a flat-panel detector angiography system

Radiology

Volumn 250, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 545-550

  Suzuki, Shigeru ^a   Furui, Shigeru ^a   Yamaguchi, Ichiro ^b   Yamagishi, Masafumi ^c   Watanabe, Akiko ^a   Abe, Toshi ^d   Kobayashi, Ikuo ^e  

^a TEIKYO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Japan)

^c TEIKYO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^d KURUME UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^e LANDAUER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL ANGIOGRAPHY; ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSIMETRY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; ANGIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD;

ANGIOGRAPHY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL;

EID: 61749083330     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2502080695     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bor D, Sancak T, Olgar T, et al. Comparison of effective doses obtained from dose-area product and air kerma measurements in in- terventional radiology. Br J Radiol 2004;77: 315-322.
2. Katritsis D, Efstathopoulos E, Betsou S, et al. Radiation exposure of patients and coronary arteries in the stent era: a prospective study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2000;51: 259-264.
3. Leung KC, Martin CJ. Effective doses for coronary angiography. Br J Radiol 1996;69: 426-431.
4. Martin CJ. A review of factors affecting patient doses for barium enemas and meals. Br J Radiol 2004;77:864-868.
5. Hart D, Wall BF. Estimation of effective dose from dose-area product measurements for barium meals and barium enemas. Br J Radiol 1994;67:485-489.
6. Hart D, Haggett PJ, Boardman P, Nolan DJ, Wall BF. Patient radiation doses from en- teroclysis examinations. Br J Radiol 1994;67:997-1000.
7. Martin CJ, Hunter S. Analysis of patient doses for myelogram and discogram examinations and their reduction through changes in equipment set-up. Br J Radiol 1995;68:508-514.
8. Hart D, Jones DG, Wall BF. Normalised organ doses for medical X-ray examinations calculated using Monte Carlo Techniques. In: National Radiological Protection Board report no. 262. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1994.
9. Betsou S, Efstathopoulos EP, Katritsis D, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. Patient radiation doses during cardiac catheterization procedures. Br J Radiol 1998;71:634- 639.
10. Hirota S, Nakao N, Yamamoto S, et al. Cone- beam CT with flat-panel-detector digital an- giography system: early experience in abdominal interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2006;29:1034-1038.
11. Siewerdsen JH, Moseley DJ, Burch S, et al. Volume CT with a flat-panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C-arm: pre-clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery. Med Phys 2005;32:241-254.
12. Cornier MA, Tate CW, Grunwald GK, Bessesen DH. Relationship between waist circumference, body mass index, and medical care costs. Obes Res 2002;10:1167-1172.
13. Golikov VY, Nikitin VV. Estimation of the mean organ doses and the effective dose equivalent from Rando phantom measurements. Health Phys 1989;56:111-115.
14. Huda W, Sandison GA. Estimation of mean organ doses in diagnostic radiology from Rando phantom measurements. Health Phys 1984;47:463- 467.
15. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake ofradionuclides. IV. Inhalation dose coefficients: a report of a task group of Committee 2 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1995;25:1-405. [Published correction appears in Ann ICRP 2002;32:310.]
16. Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Servomaa A. PCXMC: a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations. In: Report no. STUK-A139. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, 1997.
17. Cristy M. Mathematical phantoms representing children of various ages for use in estimates of internal dose. In: Annual Progress Report 5: ORNL/NUREG/TM-367. Oak Ridge, Tenn: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1980.
18. Jones DG, Wall BF. Organ doses from medical X-ray examinations calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. In: National Radiological Protection Board report no. 186. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1985.
19. Zankl M, Petoussi N, Drexler G. Effective dose and effective dose equivalent: the impact of the new ICRP definition for external photon irradiation. Health Phys 1992;62:395-399.
20. Akpek S, Brunner T, Benndorf G, Strother C. Three-dimensional imaging and cone beam volume CT in C-arm angiography with flat panel detector. Diagn Interv Radiol 2005;11:10-13.
21. Ishikura R, Ando K, Nagami Y, et al. Evaluation of vascular supply with cone-beam computed tomography during intraarterial chemotherapy for a skull base tumor. Radiat Med 2006;24:384-387.
22. Ware DE, Huda W, Mergo PJ, Litwiller AL. Radiation effective doses to patients undergoing abdominal CT examinations. Radiology 1999;210:645-650.
23. Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Kress JW. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am 1984;1: 612- 619.
24. Servomaa A, Tapiovaara M. Organ dose calculation in medical X ray examinations by the program PCXMC. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998;80:213-219.
25. Hart D, Jones DG, Wall BF. Estimation of effective dose in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface dose and dose-area product measurements. In: National Radiological Protection Board report no. 262. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1994; 30-31.