Keywords:
Professional issues, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Digital radiography, Equipment, Audit and standards, Technical aspects, Quality assurance, Image verification
Authors:
L. P. V. Ribeiro, J. Ribeiro, R. P. P. Almeida, S. Rodrigues, A. F. Abrantes, K. B. Azevedo, J. P. Pinheiro, O. Lesyuk; Faro/PT
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2016/B-0873
Results
Most of the radiographs were considered above the standards (underexposed) for both systems.
With the system 1 and comparing with manufacturers standards we obtained that 92% of the radiographs were underexposed for the chest examinations with anti-scatter grid,
84% for the chest without anti-scatter grid,
75% for the abdomen,
94% for the spine and 66% for the extremities(Fig. 2).
Using r Pearson correlation coefficient a statistical significance correlation between exposition and exposition index and independent variables was verified.
We obtained weak correlation between exposure,
exposure index and almost all variables and none correlation between exposure,
exposure index and use of anti-scatter grid.
With the system 2,
94% were underexpose for the chest with anti-scatter grid,
56% underexpose and 8% overexposed for the chest without anti-scatter grid,
70% underexposed for the abdomen,
74% underexposed for the spine,
and 52% underexposed and 17% overexposed for the extremities (Fig. 3).
Using the Pearson correlation coefficient,
it was verified a statistical significance correlation (p<0.01) between EI with tension and focus image distance.
We obtained moderated significance between exposure,
exposure index and voltage,
same results were verified between exposure,
exposure index and use of anti-scatter grid,
weak correlation between exposure,
exposure index and focus image distance,
and none correlation between exposure,
exposure index and current-time product.