BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess and compare the effective doses (ICRP 103) in the ankle region of X-ray imaging resulting from a multi slice computed tomography (MSCT) device, two cone beam CT (CBCT) devices and one conventional x-ray device.MethodsOrgan dose measurements were performed using 20 metal oxide field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters that were placed in a custom made anthropomorphic RANDO ankle phantom. The following scanners were assessed in this study: Siemens Sensation Open 24-slice MSCT-scanner (120 kVp, 54 mAs), NewTom 5G CBCT scanner (110 kVp, 2.3 - 59 mAs), Planmed Verity CBCT-scanner (90 kVp, 48 mAs), Shimadzu FH-21 HR direct radiography equipment (AP + LAT), (57 kVp, 16 mAs).ResultsMeasurements of the MSCT device resulted in 21.4 μSv effective dose. The effective doses of CBCTs were between 1.9 μSv and 14.3 μSv for NewTom 5G and 6.0 μSv for Planmed Verity. Effective doses for the Shimadzu FH-21 HR conventional radiography were 1.0 μSv (LAT) and 0.5 μSv (AP), respectively.ConclusionsCompared with a conventional 2D radiographic device, this study showed a 14-fold effective dose for standard MSCT and 1.3 -10 fold effective dose for standard CBCT protocols. CBCT devices offer a 3D view of ankle imaging and exhibited lower effective doses compared with MSCT.

In accordance with recommendations by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the current European Basic Safety Standards has adopted a reduced occupational eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv yr. The radiation safety implications of this dose limit is of concern for clinical staff that work with relatively high dose x-ray angiography and interventional radiology. Presented in this work is a thorough assessment of the occupational eye lens dose based on clinical measurements with active personal dosimeters worn by staff during various types of procedures in interventional radiology, cardiology and neuroradiology. Results are presented in terms of the estimated equivalent eye lens dose for various medical professions. In order to compare the risk of exceeding the regulatory annual eye lens dose limit for the widely different clinical situations investigated in this work, the different medical professions were separated into categories based on their distinct work pattern: staff that work (a) regularly beside the patient, (b) in proximity to the patient and (c) typically at a distance from the patient. The results demonstrate that the risk of exceeding the annual eye lens dose limit is of concern for staff category (a), i.e. mainly the primary radiologist/cardiologist. However, the results also demonstrate that the risk can be greatly mitigated if radiation protection shields are used in the clinical routine. The results presented in this work cover a wide range of clinical situations, and can be used as a first indication of the risk of exceeding the annual eye lens dose limit for staff at other medical centres.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has recommended that the occupational dose limit to the eye lens be substantially reduced. To ensure compliance with these recommendations, monitoring of the occupational eye lens dose is essential in certain hospital work environments. For assessment of the eye lens dose it is recommended to use a supplementary dosimeter placed at a position adjacent to the eye(s). Wearing a dosimeter at eye level can, however, be impractical and distributing and managing additional dosimeters over long periods of time is cumbersome and costly for large clinical sites. An attractive alternative is to utilize active personal dosimeters (APDs), which are routinely used by clinical staff for real-time monitoring of the personal dose equivalent rate (H(p)(10)). In this work, a formalism for the determination of eye lens dose from the response of such APD's worn on the chest is proposed and evaluated. The evaluation is based on both phantom and clinical measurements performed in an x-ray angiography suite for interventional cardiology. The main results show that the eye lens dose to the primary operator and to the assisting clinical staff can be conservatively estimated from the APD response as D(eye)(conductor) = 2.0 APD chest and D(eye)(assisting) = 1.0 APD chest, respectively. However, care should be exercised for particularly short assisting staff and if radiation protection shields are misused. These concerns can be greatly mitigated if the clinical staff are provided with adequate radiation protection training.

The effective dose from CBCT ranged from 140 times higher dose (NewTom5G compared to two periapical radiographs) to 15 times higher dose (ProMax3D compared to three periapical and one panoramic radiograph) than a 2D examination.

Objectives: To compare the effective dose to patients from temporomandibular joint examinations using a dental CBCT device and a multislice CT (MSCT) device, both before and after dose optimization. Methods: A Promax ® 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) dental CBCT and a LightSpeed VCT ® (GE Healthcare, Little Chalfont, UK) multislice CT were used. Organ doses and effective doses were estimated from thermoluminescent dosemeters at 61 positions inside an anthropomorphic phantom at the exposure settings in clinical use. Optimized exposure protocols were obtained through an optimization study using a dry skull phantom, where four observers rated image quality taken at different exposure levels. The optimal exposure level was obtained when all included criteria were rated as acceptable or better by all observers. Results: The effective dose from a bilateral examination was 184 mSv for Promax 3D and 113 mSv for LightSpeed VCT before optimization. Post optimization, the bilateral effective dose was 92 mSv for Promax 3D and 124 mSv for LightSpeed VCT. Conclusions: At optimized exposure levels, the effective dose from CBCT was comparable to MSCT.

Since the effective dose may be reduced without losing diagnostic information in the area of interest, collimation feature of panoramic imaging should be routinely applied when the diagnostic task allows.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.