Increasing source to image distance for AP pelvis imaging - Impact on radiation dose and image quality

Radiography

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 351-355

  Tugwell, J ^a,b   Everton, C ^b   Kingma, A ^c   Oomkens, D M ^c   Pereira, G A ^d   Pimentinha, D B ^d   Rouiller, C A I ^e   Stensrud, S M ^f   Kjelle, E ^f   Jorge, J ^e   Hogg, P ^b  

^a BETSI CADWALADR UNIVERSITY HEALTH BOARD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c HANZE UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^d INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

^e UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES WESTERN SWITZERLAND   (Switzerland)

^f OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Computed radiography; Effective dose; Entrance surface dose; Image quality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSIMETRY; EXPOSURE; FEMUR HEAD; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING PHANTOM; LIKERT SCALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PELVIS; PHANTOM; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

EID: 84908470193     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: 15322831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2014.05.012     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. European Commission Council directive 97/43/Euratom on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing directive 84/466/Euratom. Off J Eur Communities 1997, L180(40):22.
2. International Commission on Radiological Protection Radiological protection and safety in medicine, ICRP publication 73 1996, Annals ICRP 26, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
3. Hart D., Wall B.F., Hillier M.C., Shrimpton P.C. Frequency and collective dose for medical and dental X-ray examinations in the UK 2008, Health Protection Agency, Report HPA-CRCE-012.
4. Heath R., England A., Ward A., Charnock P., Ward M., Evans P., et al. Digital pelvic radiography: increasing distance to reduce dose. Radiol Technol 2011, 83(1):20-28.
5. Doolan A., Brennan P.C., Rainford L.A., Healy J. Gonad protection for the antero-posterior projection of the pelvis in diagnostic radiography in Dublin hospitals. Radiography 2004, 10:15-21.
6. Brennan P.C., McDonnell S., O'Leary D. Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for X-ray examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim 2004, 108(3):263-268.
7. Grondin Y., Matthews K., McEntee M., Rainford L., Casey M., Tonra M., et al. Dose-reducing strategies in combination offers substantial potential benefit to females requiring X-ray examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim 2004, 108(2):123-132.
8. Poletti J., Mclean D. The effect of source to image-receptor distance on effective dose for some common X-ray projections. Br J Radiol 2005, 78:810-815.
9. Farrell K.R.C., Abbott C., Round K., Willis S.J., Yalden R., Knapp K.M. Pelvic projection radiography: increasing the source to image distance provides diagnostic images at reduced dose. Proceedings of the UK radiological congress 2008, 16.
10. Woods J., Messer S. Focusing on dose. Synergy Imaging Ther Pract 2009 September, 16-20.
11. Maa W.K., Hogg P., Tootell A., Manning D., Thomas N., Kane T., et al. Anthropomorphic chest phantom imaging - the potential for dose creep in computed radiography. Radiography 2013, 19:207-211.
12. Gisbon D., Davidson R. Exposure creep in computed radiography, a longitudinal study. Acad Radiol 2012, 19(4):458-462.
13. Uffmann M., Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2009, 72:202-208.
14. CR 35-X Digitizer Small footprint digitizer for the complete range of clinical application 2007, Agfa Health Care, [online accessed 16.08.13], pp. 3-4. http://radonmedicalimaging.com/pdf/agfa_CR_35-X.pdf.
15. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) IPEM report 91 recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic X-ray imaging systems 2005, IPEM, York. 2nd ed.
16. Whitley A.S., Sloane C., Hoadley G., Moore A.D., Alsop C.W. The hip, pelvis and sacroiliac joints. Clark's positioning in radiography 2005, 141-162. Hodder Arnold, London. 12th ed.
17. Bontrager K.L., Lampignano J.P. Handbook of radiographic positioning and techniques 2005, Mosby, St. Louis. 7th ed.
18. Aldrich J., Duran E., Dunlop P., Mayo J. Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography. JDigital Imaging 2006, 19(2):126-131.
19. Williams L. Pelvis and hips. Medical imaging: technique, reflection and evaluation 2006, 121-133. Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier, Philadelphia. B. Carver, E. Carver (Eds.).
20. Hogg P. Software for image quality evaluation using a forced choice method. United Kingdom radiological conference 2012, 139. British Institute of Radiology, Manchester/London, UK.
21. Pelli D.G., Farell B. Handbook of optics. Fundamentals, techniques, and design 1995, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, New York.
22. European Commission European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images 1996, EUR 16260 EN.
23. Manning-Stanley A., Ward A., England A. Options for radiation dose optimisation in pelvic digital radiography: a phantom study. Radiography 2012, 18:256-263.
24. The Royal College of Radiologist Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and quality assurcance 2012, The Royal College of Radiologists, London. 2nd.ed.
25. Hein L.R., Campos K.A., Caltabiano P.C. Low voltage and variable-pressure scanning electron microscopy of fractured composites. Micron 2012, 43:1039-1049.
26. Tapivaara M., Lakkisto M., Servomaa A. PCXMC: a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations 1997, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki, Report STUK-A139.
27. Schmidt P.W.E., Dance D.R., Skinner C.L., Smith I.A., McNeill J.G. Conversion factors for the estimation of effective dose paediatric cardiac angiography. Phys Med Biol 2000, 45:3095-3107.
28. Schultz F.W., Geleijns J., Spoelstra F.M., Zoetelief J. Monte Carlo calculations for assessment of radiation dose to patients with congenital heart defects and to staff during cardiac catheterization. Br J Radiol 2003, 76:638-647.
29. Helmrot E., Pettersson H., Sandborg M., Altén J.N. Estimation of dose to the unborn child at diagnostic X-ray examinations based on data registered in RIS/PACS. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:205.
30. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics 2005, Duxbury Press, Belmont: CA.
31. Smith S.W. The scientist and engineer's guide to digital signal processing 1997, 650. California Technical Publishing, San Diego.