Muscle and bone dose in paediatric limb digital radiography: a Monte Carlo evaluation
The proliferation of digital radiography (DR) has led to a re-evaluation of exposure parameters and image quality. Currently, there is a move towards reducing X-ray tube voltage (kVp) in paediatric exposures down to 40 kVp to achieve better images. However, the effect on patient dose of these modifications is uncertain. The main aims of this phantom study were to evaluate the effect of reducing the kVp in paediatric limb DR exposures on contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and patient dose. For this purpose, Monte Carlo simulations of radiographic exposures on a paediatric limb phantom were performed. The phantom included muscle tissue and bone segments of five different densities in the range of 1.12 to 1.48 g/cm3. The overall thickness of the phantom varied between 1 and 12 cm. Dependence of the CNR at constant limb phantom muscle and bone doses and dependence of the CNR per unit of muscle and bone dose at constant detector dose on radiographic exposure factors and limb thickness were calculated. X-ray tube current-time product (mAs) values required to achieve equal detector dose versus limb thickness for different kVp were calculated, as well as muscle and bone doses for the limb phantom of varying thickness. Present work has shown that reducing the kVp in paediatric radiography of the extremities can result in a significant increase in radiation dose, particularly for thicker limbs. Low kVp radiography requires justification for use on the extremities.
KeywordsDigital radiography Exposure factors Paediatric Radiation dose Extremities Bone Contrast-to-noise ratio Image quality
This study did not have financial support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding this study.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380(9840):499–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1977) Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP publication 26, Ann. ICRP 1(3)Google Scholar
- 4.International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2007) Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37(2–4)Google Scholar
- 5.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPNSA) (2008) Code of practice: radiation protection in the medical applications of ionizing radiation, radiation protection series publication no 14Google Scholar
- 10.International Standard ISO 9236–1 (2004) Photography-sensitometry of screen-film systems for medical radiography—Part 1: determination of sensitometric curve shape, speed and average gradient. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 12.International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2013) Radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. ICRP publication 121, Ann. ICRP 42(2)Google Scholar
- 15.Council of the European Communities (1996) European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in paediatrics. Report EUR 16261, Luxemburg, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kawrakow I, Mainegra-Hing E, Rogers DWO, Tessier F, Walters BRB (2010) The EGSnrc code system: Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. Ionizing Radiation Standards, National Research Council of Canada, technical report no PIRS-701, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 20.Philips (2010) Open a new chapter in radiography. Philips DigitalDiagnost Digital Radiography Solutions, Philips, Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 45229625804Google Scholar
- 21.Philips (2016) Products & solutions, digital radiography, DigitalDiagnost, specifications, detectors, fixed detector. https://www.healthcare.philips.com/main/products/xray/products/radiography/digital/digitaldiagnost/specifications.wpd#DetectorsSection. Accessed 18 March 2016
- 22.White DR, Booz J, Griffith RV, Spokas JJ, Wilson IJ (1989) Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), ICRU report 44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os23.1.Report44
- 23.White DR, Griffith RV, Wilson IJ (1992) Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), ICRU report 46. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os24.1.Report46
- 25.Kawrakow I, Mainegra-Hing E and Rogers DWO (2006) EGSnrcMP: the multi-platform environment for EGSnrc. Ionizing Radiation Standards, National Research Council of Canada, technical report no PIRS-877, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 26.Duggan C, Watkins JB, Walker WA (2008) Nutrition in pediatrics: basic science. Health & fitness, clinical applications, PMPH-USA, p 31Google Scholar
- 27.Hennig W, Machenschalk R, Sedlatschek K (1971) Rotary anode for X-ray tube. Patent US3579022 AGoogle Scholar
- 29.Eck R (1988) Rotary anode for X-ray tubes. Patent US 4780902Google Scholar
- 30.Cranley K, Gilmore BJ, Fogarty GWA, Desponds L (1997) IPEM report 78: catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data. Electronic version prepared by Sutton D, London, GB, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM)Google Scholar
- 31.Reilly AJ, Sutton D (1997) Report 78. Spectrum processor, IPEMGoogle Scholar
- 32.Tapiovaara M, Siiskonen T (1997) PCXMC. A PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient dose in medical X-ray examinations, 2nd edn. Helsinki, Finland, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, report STUK-A139Google Scholar
- 33.Huda W, Slone RM (2003) Review of radiologic physics, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, p 22, Table 2.2Google Scholar