Advertisement

Muscle and bone dose in paediatric limb digital radiography: a Monte Carlo evaluation

  • Yuri V. MatyaginEmail author
  • Donald W. McRobbie
Scientific Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Digital radiography Exposure factors Paediatric Radiation dose Extremities Bone Contrast-to-noise ratio Image quality 

Notes

Funding

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.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. Br Med J 346:f2360.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1977) Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP publication 26, Ann. ICRP 1(3)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2007) Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37(2–4)Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Huda W, Abrahams RB (2015) Radiographic techniques, contrast, and noise in X-ray imaging. Am J Roentgenol 204(2):W126–W131.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knight SP (2014) A paediatric X-ray exposure chart. J Med Radiat Sci 61(3):191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ergun L, Olgar T (2017) Investigation of noise sources for digital radiography systems. Radiol Phys Technol 10(2):171–179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-016-0381-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Davies AG (2008) Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics. Clinical Radiol 63(5):487–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Huda W (2004) Assessment of the problem: pediatric doses in screen-film and digital radiography. Pediatr Radiol 34(suppl 3):S173–S182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1267-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Herrmann TL, Fauber TL, Gill J, Hoffman C, Orth DK, Peterson PA et al (2012) Best practices in digital radiography. Radiol Technol 84(1):83–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carson S, Woolridge DP, Colletti J, Kilgore K (2006) Pediatric upper extremity injuries. Pediatr Clin N Am 53(1):41–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2005.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Hess R, Neitzel U (2012) Optimizing image quality and dose for digital radiography of distal pediatric extremities using the contrast-to-noise ratio. Rofo 184(7):643–649.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1312727 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones A, Ansell C, Jerrom C, Honey ID (2015) Optimization of image quality and patient dose in radiographs of paediatric extremities using direct digital radiography. Br J Radiol 88(1050):20140660.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140660 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kawrakow I (2000) Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport I EGSnrc the new EGS4 version. Med Phys 27(3):485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Philips (2010) Open a new chapter in radiography. Philips DigitalDiagnost Digital Radiography Solutions, Philips, Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 45229625804Google Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 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
  24. 24.
    Zhou H, Keall PJ, Graves EE (2009) A bone composition model for Monte Carlo x-ray transport simulations. Med Phys 36(3):1008–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 26.
    Duggan C, Watkins JB, Walker WA (2008) Nutrition in pediatrics: basic science. Health & fitness, clinical applications, PMPH-USA, p 31Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hennig W, Machenschalk R, Sedlatschek K (1971) Rotary anode for X-ray tube. Patent US3579022 AGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lassner E, Schubert WD (1999) Tungsten: properties, chemistry, technology of the element, alloys, and chemical compounds. Cluwer Academic/Plenum Publishes, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eck R (1988) Rotary anode for X-ray tubes. Patent US 4780902Google Scholar
  30. 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. 31.
    Reilly AJ, Sutton D (1997) Report 78. Spectrum processor, IPEMGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 33.
    Huda W, Slone RM (2003) Review of radiologic physics, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, p 22, Table 2.2Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huda W, Glanatsios NA (1998) Radiation dosimetry for extremity radiographs. Health Phys 75(5):492–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schönau E (1998) The development of the skeletal system in children and the influence of muscular strength. Horm Res 49(1):27–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schönau E (1998) Problem of bone analysis in childhood and adolescence. Pediatr Nephrol 12(5):420–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Australia Medical ImagingRoyal Adelaide HospitalAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.South Australia Medical ImagingFlinders Medical CentreBedford ParkAustralia
  3. 3.School of Physical SciencesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations