Radiation dose levels assessment in general radiology

Congress:

ECR 2018

Poster Number:

C-2470

Type:

Scientific Exhibit

Keywords:

Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Radiographers, Professional issues, Digital radiography, Conventional radiography, Radiation safety, Dosimetry, Technical aspects, Occupational / Environmental hazards, Dosimetric comparison, Quality assurance

Authors:

A. F. Abrantes, A. F. C. Pires, S. Rodrigues, L. P. Ribeiro, R. P. P. Almeida, M. V. C. Reis; Faro/PT

DOI:

10.1594/ecr2018/C-2470

DOI-Link:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1594/ecr2018/C-2470

Fig. 2

Table 1: Sample distribution by examination, in each hospital.

Table 2: Exposure parameter (KV), for each examination

Table 3: Exposure parameter (mAs), for each examination

Fig. 1: Graphic 1- Dose Reference Levels, for each examination, by hospital

Table 4: Table 4 - Dose Reference Levels for both hospitals

Aims and objectives

The aim of this study was tomeasure radiation dose levels in general radiology of two regional public hospitals (A and B) and to compare them with international guidelines.

Methods and materials

A survey of exposure parameters (kV and mAs) and sociodemographic and anthropometric characteristics of patients (age, gender, weight and height) was used to perform the calculation of entrance skin dose (ESD) and effective dose of the sample. The sample was composed by 10 different radiographic projections with a total of 560 examinations observed, in both hospitals, as seen in Table 1 (98 exams from men (34%) and 368 from women (66%)). For viability measurements, the dose rate and quality control using the RF detector Unfors...

Results

The Entrance Surface Dose (ESD) was calculated through the exposure parameters (kV and mAs). The Table 2 and Table 3 demonstrate those variables for the 10 projections. The DRL´s (Dose Reference Levels) values were estimated through 75th percentile of mean values of DLP, and are demonstrated in Fig. 1 . The DRL value for the lateral chest examination on Hospital B was not calculated, because the sample was only 2 exams. The obtained results for the DRL in the two Hospitals were 0.279 mGy for...

Conclusion

Generally, the radiation dose levels are lower than international guidelines and they are all relevant as a guarantee that the radiation dose delivered to patients is kept within reasonable limits. However, it is important to keep reconsidering the protocols used and all possible methods should be applied to optimise them to continuously reduce the radiation dose levels.

Personal information

António Abrantes (PhD), Professor in the Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, Health School - University of Algarve, Portugal. Researcher in CICS.NOVA (Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities) and Member of Studies Center in Healthcare (CES-ESSUALG). E-mail: [email protected] Ana Pires (BSc), Collaborator in the Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, Health School - University of Algarve, Portugal. Email: [email protected] Sónia Rodrigues (MSc), Professor in the Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, Health School - University of Algarve, Portugal. Radiographer in Centro Hospitalar Universitário...

References

Bushong, S. C. (2004). Radiologic Science for Tecnologists. In S. C. Bushong, Radiologic Science for Tecnologists. St. Louis: Mosby. Decreto de Lei 180/2002. (8 de Agosto de 2002). Diário da Républica nº182/2002 - I Série A. Despacho nº 9871/2010. (11 de Junho de 2010). Diário da República, 2ª Serie -N.º 112. Ferreira, A. F. (2009). Protecção radiológica do serviço de Radiologia do Hospital de Faro E.P.E (Mestrado em Imagiologia Médica). Faro: Universidade do Algarve. Freitas, M. B., & Yoshimura, E. M. (2009). Diagnostic reference levels...