Effect of Collimation on Radiation Exposure and Image Quality

Ghobadifar, Mohamed Amin; Zarei, Sanaz

doi:10.3344/kjp.2013.26.3.307

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the radiation safety of radiographers, the main principles are same as that of physicians' radiation safety such as reducing the X-ray time, increasing the distance from the radiation source and using radiation protective gear as shielding [ 5 , 17 ]. The methods for reducing radiation exposure are to decrease the fluoroscopy time, decrease the number of fluoroscopic images, use a collimator, use the pulsed or low dose mode, use protective shielding, maintaining a long distance from the radiation source, obtaining the appropriate training and wearing dosimeters (to know personal exposure dose) [ 1 , 7 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. With these methods, radiographers can actively use protective shielding, personal dosimeters, and long distances from radiation sources as measures to reduce radiation exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Radiation Exposure of Radiographer Related to the Location in C-arm Fluoroscopy-guided Pain Interventions

Chang

Kim

et al. 2014

Korean J Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAlthough a physician may be the nearest to the radiation source during C-arm fluoroscope-guided interventions, the radiographer is also near the fluoroscope. We prospectively investigated the radiation exposure of radiographers relative to their location.MethodsThe effective dose (ED) was measured with a digital dosimeter on the radiographers' left chest and the side of the table. We observed the location of the radiographers in each procedure related to the mobile support structure of the fluoroscope (Groups A, M and P). Data about age, height, weight, sex, exposure time, radiation absorbed dose (RAD), and the ED at the radiographer's chest and the side of the table was collected.ResultsThere were 51 cases for Group A, 116 cases for Group M and 144 cases for Group P. No significant differences were noted in the demographic data such as age, height, weight, and male to female ratio, and exposure time, RAD and ED at the side of the table. Group P had the lowest ED (0.5 ± 0.8 µSv) of all the groups (Group A, 1.6 ± 2.3 µSv; Group M, 1.3 ± 1.9 µSv; P < 0.001). The ED ratio (ED on the radiographer's chest/ED at the side of the table) of Group A was the highest, and the ED radio of Group P was the lowest of all the groups (Group A, 12.2 ± 21.5%; Group M, 5.7 ± 6.5%; Group P, 2.5 ± 6.7%; P < 0.001). ConclusionsRadiographers can easily reduce their radiation exposure by changing their position. Two steps behind the mobile support structure can effectively decrease the exposure of radiographers by about 80%.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Radiation Exposure of Radiographer Related to the Location in C-arm Fluoroscopy-guided Pain Interventions

Chang

Kim

et al. 2014

Korean J Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…X-rays are produced by the X-ray tube when a stream of electrons, accelerated to high velocities by a high-voltage supply, collides with the tube’s target anode [7]. A set of collimators confines the primary beam to the approximate size and shape of the diagnostic interest [8]. X-rays emerging from the patient carry the image information to the input phosphor of an image intensifier, or to a flat-panel digital detector (Fig.…”

Section: Mobile C-arm Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endovascular Intervention with a Mobile C-Arm in the Operating Room

Joh

2019

VSI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile C-arm fluoroscopic X-ray systems are used for various diagnostic imaging and minimally invasive endovascular procedures. One of the greatest advantages of a mobile C-arm is its ability to move around the patient. The purpose of this study was to address the optimal setting of the mobile C-arm and the operating table, as well as the proper position of the operator and assistants for each procedure. In addition, methods to minimize radiation exposure to the operator and medical staff are described. Both the optimal setting and the proper position were classified by 5 types. These include the setting for aortic and inferior vena caval procedures (type I); left lower extremity (LE) intervention with an up-and-over technique (type II); right LE intervention with up-and-over technique, or bilateral LE vascular intervention with antegrade access (type III); arteriovenous fistula/graft intervention (type IV); and central vein catheterization (type V).

show abstract