LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,149
تعداد مقالات10,518
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,417,489
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,295,480
Esmaeilian, Amir Mohammad, Aliakbari, Saeedeh, Hejazi, Payman, Jadidi, Majid. (1403). Impact of Electronic Collimation on Reducing Unnecessary Patient Dose in Digital Radiography. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(5), 457-468. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2401-1707
Amir Mohammad Esmaeilian; Saeedeh Aliakbari; Payman Hejazi; Majid Jadidi. "Impact of Electronic Collimation on Reducing Unnecessary Patient Dose in Digital Radiography". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14, 5, 1403, 457-468. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2401-1707
Esmaeilian, Amir Mohammad, Aliakbari, Saeedeh, Hejazi, Payman, Jadidi, Majid. (1403). 'Impact of Electronic Collimation on Reducing Unnecessary Patient Dose in Digital Radiography', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(5), pp. 457-468. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2401-1707
Esmaeilian, Amir Mohammad, Aliakbari, Saeedeh, Hejazi, Payman, Jadidi, Majid. Impact of Electronic Collimation on Reducing Unnecessary Patient Dose in Digital Radiography. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 14(5): 457-468. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2401-1707

Impact of Electronic Collimation on Reducing Unnecessary Patient Dose in Digital Radiography

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
دوره 14، شماره 5، دی 2024، صفحه 457-468    اصل مقاله (1.36 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Research
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2401-1707
نویسندگان
Amir Mohammad Esmaeilian1، 2؛ Saeedeh Aliakbari3؛ Payman Hejazi* 1؛ Majid Jadidi1
1Department of Medical Physics, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
2Student Research Committee, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
3Department of Radiology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
چکیده
Background: In radiology, optimizing radiation protection is crucial, and field collimation plays a critical role in minimizing patient dose. As technology has evolved, electronic collimation has become the preferred method due to its effectiveness in digital imaging systems, replacing traditional film-screen systems.
Objective: The current study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cropping in digital radiography and its potential impact on patient radiation dose because of improper collimation practices.
Material and Methods: This retrospective analysis was conducted on digital X-ray machine images. Quality control tests were performed to ensure equipment accuracy, and image cropping was then measured by analyzing archived images. Finally, the cropped image fraction and associated unnecessary radiation doses were calculated.
Results: Quality control tests confirmed that all imaging equipment was functioned within acceptable alignment and angle tolerances. The analysis of 911 images revealed a high prevalence of cropping (82%), with significant variation across different projections. Lateral knee images exhibited the highest cropping rate (96.2%), while abdominal images had the lowest (36.1%). 
Conclusion: Electronic image cropping can lead radiologic technologists to inaccurately define the primary radiation field, affecting image quality and potentially increasing patient radiation exposure. Based on the obtained results, proper collimation can reduce the average Dose Area Product (DAP) by 29.01%. This approach not only enhances patient safety but also minimizes unnecessary radiation exposure and potentially reduces healthcare costs.

تازه های تحقیق

Amir Mohammad Esmaeilian (PubMed)

Payman Hejazi (Google Scholar)

کلیدواژه‌ها
Digital Radiography؛ Radiation Protection؛ Electronic Collimation؛ Radiation Dosage؛ Quality Control Radiologic؛ Diagnostic Reference Levels
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Seeram E. Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and Quality Control. Springer; 2019.
  2. Wiemker R, Dippel S, Stahl M, Blaffert T, Mahlmeister U. Automated recognition of the collimation field in digital radiography images by maximization of the Laplace area integral. In: Medical Imaging 2000: Image Processing 2000; San Diego, CA, United States: SPIE; 2000. p. 1555-65.
  3. Shetty CM, Barthur A, Kambadakone A, Narayanan N, Kv R. Computed radiography image artifacts revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(1):W37-47. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5563. PubMed PMID: 21178029.
  4. Takeuchi H, Chuang KS, Huang HK. Dual energy imaging in projection radiography. In: Application of Optical Instrumentation in Medicine XIV and Picture Archiving and Communication Systems; Newport Beach, CA, United States: SPIE; 1986. p. 39-48.
  5. Kruse JJ, Herman MG, Hagness CR, Davis BJ, Garces YI, Haddock MG, et al. Electronic and film portal images: a comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(2):584-91. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02955-3. PubMed PMID: 12243839.
  6. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 2004;34(1):1-73. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2004.02.001. PubMed PMID: 15302167.
  7. Carter C, Veale B. Digital radiography and PACS E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
  8. Satharasinghe D, Jeyasugiththan J, Jeyasuthan M, Amalaraj T, Abeyweera AL, Wanninayake WMNMB, Pallewatte AS. Impact of Collimation on Radiation Exposure in Adult and Paediatric Digital X-Ray Imaging. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2021;197(1):19-27. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncab155. PubMed PMID: 34718821.
  9. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72(2):202-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.060. PubMed PMID: 19628349.
  10. Bomer J, Wiersma-Deijl L, Holscher HC. Electronic collimation and radiation protection in paediatric digital radiography: revival of the silver lining. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(5):723-7. doi: 10.1007/s13244-013-0281-5. PubMed PMID: 23982805. PubMed PMCID: PMC3781259.
  11. Long BW, Rollins JH, Smith BJ. Merrill’s atlas of radiographic positioning and procedures e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
  12. Tsalafoutas IA. Electronic collimation of radiographic images: does it comprise an overexposure risk? Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1086):20170958. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170958. PubMed PMID: 29544343. PubMed PMCID: PMC6223295.
  13. International Atomic Energy Agency. Handbook of Basic Quality Control Tests for Diagnostic Radiology. Vienna: IAEA; 2023.
  14. Guðjónsdóttir J. The unnecessary dose behind cropped radiographs. Radiography Open. 2019;5(1):1-10. doi: 10.7577/radopen.3611.
  15. 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):126-31. doi: 10.1007/s10278-006-9944-9. PubMed PMID: 16511674. PubMed PMCID: PMC3045190.
  16. Zetterberg LG, Espeland A. Lumbar spine radiography--poor collimation practices after implementation of digital technology. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1002):566-9. doi: 10.1259/bjr/74571469. PubMed PMID: 21606070. PubMed PMCID: PMC3473630.
  17. Karami V, Zabihzadeh M. Beam Collimation during Lumbar Spine Radiography: A Retrospective Study. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2017;7(2):101-6. PubMed PMID: 28580331. PubMed PMCID: PMC5447246.
  18. Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, et al. ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(1):1-144. doi: 10.1177/0146645317717209. PubMed PMID: 29065694.
  19. Pazanin A, Skrk D, O’Driscoll JC, McEntee MF, Mekis N. Optimal collimation significantly improves lumbar spine radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020;189(4):420-7. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncaa057. PubMed PMID: 32363403.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 380
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 157


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب