Abstract
The assessment of patient dose has gained increased attention, still being an issue of concern that arises from the use of digital systems. The development of digital technology offers the possibility for a reduction of radiation dose around 50% without loss in image quality when compared to a conventional screen–film system. Digital systems give an equivalent or superior diagnostic performance and also several other advantages, but the risk of overexposure with no adverse effect on image quality could be present.
This chapter refers to the management of patient dose and provides an explanation of dose-related concepts. In this chapter, exposure influence in dose and image representation and the effects of radiation exposure are also discussed.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Annals of the ICRP 34; 2004.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes. Volume I: Report to the general assembly, Scientific Annexes A and B; 2008.
Regulla DF, Eder H. Patient exposures in medical X-ray imaging in Europe. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;14:11–25C.
Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363:345–51.
Martin CJ, Dendy PP, Corbett RH. Medical imaging and radiation protection for medical students and clinical staff. London: British Institute of Radiology; 2003.
Seeram E, Brennan P. Diagnostic reference levels in radiology. Radiol Technol. 2006;77:373–84.
Cohen B. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1137–43.
Cohen B. The cancer risk from low-level radiation. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA, editors. Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomography. Berlin: Springer; 2007.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. ICRP Publication 85. Annals of the ICRP 30; 2000.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21; 1991.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Optimization of the radiological protection of patients undergoing radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Available at http://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1423_web.pdf (2004).
Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Servomaa A. PCXMC: a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations, 1997. Report STUK-A139. Helsinki: Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety; 2005.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiologic protection in medicine. ICRP Publication 105. Annals of the ICRP 37; 2007.
Engel-Hills P. Radiation protection in medical imaging. Radiography. 2006;12:153–60.
Bushong SC. Radiologic science for technologists. 7th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2001.
Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260. Available at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/eur16260.pdf (1996).
International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists. A glossary of physics. Radiation protection & dosimetry in diagnostic organ imaging. ISRRT Publication; 1985.
Hart D, Jones DG, Wall BF. Estimation of effective doses in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface dose and dose-area product measurements. NRPB-R262. Chilton; 1994.
Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:202–8.
International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment—exposure index of digital X-ray imaging systems—Part 1: Definitions and requirements for general radiography. In: International Standard, IEC 62494, Geneva; 2008.
Lança L, Silva A. Evaluation of exposure index (lgm) in orthopaedic radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;129:112–8.
Peters S, Brennan P. Digital radiography: are the manufacturers’ settings too high? Optimisation of the Kodak digital radiography system with aid of the computed radiography dose index. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2381–7.
Ng CKC, Sun Z. Development of an online automatic computed radiography dose data mining program: a preliminary study. Comput Meth Prog Biomed. 2010;97:48–52.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. ICRP Publication 73. Annals of the ICRP 26; 1996.
Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. Doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK—2000 review. NRPB-W14. Available at http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947421571 (2002).
American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR practice guideline for general radiography. Available at http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/dx/general_radiography.aspx (2008).
Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF, Hobbs BB, Mettler FA, Pizzutiello RJ, Schueler BA, Strauss KJ, Orhan H, Suleiman OH, Yaffe MJ. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology. 2005;235:354–8.
European Commission. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom. Health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure and repealing directive 84/466/Euratom. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/9743_en.pdf (1997).
Strotzer M, Völk M, Feuerbach S. Experimental examinations and initial clinical experience with a flat-panel detector in radiography. Electromedica. 1998;2:52–7.
Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film–screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:923–9.
Al Khalifah K, Brindhaban A. Comparison between conventional radiography and digital radiography for various kVp and mAs settings using a pelvic phantom. Radiography. 2004;10:119–25.
Vaño E. ICRP publications on medical exposures: digital radiology. IFMBE Proc. 2007;14:4216–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lança, L., Silva, A. (2013). Assessment of Patient Dose in Digital Systems. In: Digital Imaging Systems for Plain Radiography. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5067-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5067-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5066-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5067-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)