Journal of Radiation Protection and Research

The Korean Association for Radiation Protection (대한방사선방어학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Proposed Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels in Computed and Direct Digital Radiography Examinations in Two Teaching Hospitals

  • Emmanuel Gyan (Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Sunyani Technical University) ;
  • George Amoako (Department of Physics, School of Physical Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, University of Cape Coast) ;
  • Stephen Inkoom (Radiation Protection Institute, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission) ;
  • Christiana Subaar (Department of Physics, Faculty of Physical and Computational Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Barry Rahman Maamah (St. Mary's Hospital-Drobo)
  • Received : 2021.10.13
  • Accepted : 2022.05.20
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The detectors of both computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) have a wide dynamic range that could tolerate high values of exposure factors without an adverse effect on image quality. Therefore, this study aims to assess patient radiation dose and proposes institutional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for two teaching hospitals in Ghana. Materials and Methods: CR and DR systems were utilized in this study from two teaching hospitals. The CR system was manufactured by Philips Medical Systems DMC GmbH, while the DR system was manufactured by General Electric. The entrance skin doses (ESDs) were calculated using the standard equation and the tube output measurements. Free-in-air kerma (µGy) was measured using a calibrated radiation dosimeter. The proposed institutional DRLs were estimated using 75th percentiles values of the estimated ESDs for nine radiographic projections. Results and Discussion: The calculated DRLs were 0.4, 1.6, 3.4, 0.5, 0.4, 1.1, 1.0, 1.2, and 1.7 mGy for chest posteroanterior (PA), lumbar spine anteroposterior (AP), lumbar spine lateral (LAT), cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, skull PA, pelvis AP, and abdomen AP, respectively in CR system. In the DR system, the values were 0.3, 1.6, 3.1, 0.4, 0.3, 0.7, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.3 for chest PA, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, skull PA, pelvis AP, and abdomen AP, respectively. Conclusion: Institutional DRLs in nine radiographic projections have been proposed for two teaching hospitals in Ghana for the first time. The proposed DRLs will serve as baseline data for establishing local DRLs in the hospitals and will be a valuable tool in optimizing patient doses.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors express profound gratitude to the following: Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETfund) for their financial support of the correspondent author's education; Norwegian Partnership Programme for Global Academic Cooperation (NORPART); Mr. Leonard Quansah of Philips Medical systems-Ghana for supporting this research work.

References

  1. Aldrich JE, Duran E, Dunlop P, Mayo JR. Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography. J Digit Imaging. 2006;19(2):126-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-006-9944-9
  2. Betlazar C, Middleton RJ, Banati RB, Liu GJ. The impact of high and low dose ionising radiation on the central nervous system. Redox Biol. 2016;9:144-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2016.08.002
  3. Milu C, Tomulescu V. Optimization of patient protection in diagnostic radiology by application of guidance levels. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association on harmonization of radiation, human life and the ecosystem; 2000 May 14-19; Hiroshima, Japan. Available from: https://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00307.pdf.
  4. Moore QT, Don S, Goske MJ, Strauss KJ, Cohen M, Herrmann T, et al. Image gently: using exposure indicators to improve pediatric digital radiography. Radiol Technol. 2012;84(1):93-99.
  5. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic and dental X-ray examinations in the UK. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/12568539
  6. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1-3):1-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6453(91)90065-O
  7. Johnston DA, Brennan PC. Reference dose levels for patients undergoing common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Irish hospitals. Br J Radiol. 2000;73(868):396-402. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.73.868.10844865
  8. George J, Eatough JP, Mountford PJ, Koller CJ, Oxtoby J, Frain G. Patient dose optimization in plain radiography based on standard exposure factors. Br J Radiol. 2004;77(922):858-863. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/21484847
  9. Tung CJ, Tsai HY, Lo SH, Guan CN, Chen YB. Determination of guidance levels of dose for diagnostic radiography in Taiwan. Med Phys. 2001;28(5):850-857. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1368126
  10. Taha MT, Al-Ghorabie FH, Kutbi RA, Saib WK. Assessment of entrance skin doses for patients undergoing diagnostic X-ray examinations in King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, KSA. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2015;8(1):100-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2014.12.003
  11. Ofori EK, Antwi WK, Scutt DN, Ward M. Optimization of patient radiation protection in pelvic X-ray examination in Ghana. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13(4):3719.
  12. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA safety series No. 115: International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation source. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1996.
  13. Nyathi T, Nethwadzi LC, Mabhergu T, Pule ML, van der Merwe DG. Patient dose audit for patients undergoing six common radiography examinations: potential dose reference levels. S Afr Radiogr. 2009;47(2):9-13.
  14. Tonkopi E, Daniels C, Gale MJ, Schofield SC, Sorhaindo VA, Vanlarkin JL. Local diagnostic reference levels for typical radiographic procedures. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2012;63(4):237-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2011.02.004
  15. Owusu-Banahene J, Amoako G, Owusu I, Awuah B, Darko EO. Assessment of some selected conventional diagnostic X-ray facilities at Cape-Coast in the central Region of Ghana. Austin J Radiol. 2015;2(7):1038.
  16. Brennan PC, McDonnell S, O'Leary D. Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for X-ray examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004;108(3):263-268. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch029
  17. Lai ZH, Sa Dos Reis C, Sun Z. Effective dose and image optimisation of lateral lumbar spine radiography: a phantom study. Eur Radiol Exp. 2020;4(1):13.
  18. Adejoh T. Nigerian radiographers obligation to diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in medical imaging. J Radiogr Radiat Sci. 2020;34(1):GUDF2289.
  19. Diop AY, Diagne M, Faye NAB, Dieng MM. Establishment of local diagnostic reference levels in conventional radiography: a pilot study in Dakar, Senegal. World J Nucl Sci Technol. 2022;12(1):28-42. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjnst.2022.121004