Evaluation of entrance surface dose and scattered dose to the pelvis for common radiological examinations in analog and digital radiography: A phantom study

Abstract

Discovery of X-rays in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen opened new horizons in medical sciences. However, the challenging nature of ionizing radiation has highlighted the importance of protective measures. The highly penetrating nature of X-rays and differences in the sensitivity of body tissues to this type of radiation are responsible for the biological effects in humans. To limit the harmful tissue reactions and the stochastic effects of X-rays, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has recommended two principles of justification and optimization (1) . Since radiological imaging has become one of the main diagnostic methods to determine the cause of diseases, some concerns have been raised regarding full adherence to protective and patient dose principles (2) . Accordingly, the ICRP

Pelvic radiation dose measurement for trauma patients in multifield radiographic examinations: A phantom‐based TLD dosimetry study

“…As mentioned, we performed extremities, skull, chest, pelvis, abdomen, femur, and lumbar radiography as the most common examinations in emergencies, 14 for trauma patients with multiple injuries. 9 , 14 , 18 However, the previous study results 17 are also included in Table 3 . Table 4 represents the mean ESDs, and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) reported by other researchers compared to our results (the total received pelvis dose from each group of multifield examinations).…”

“…To establish the calibration curve, chips were organized into 20 groups of 5 and subjected to various X‐ray doses falling within the diagnostic radiology dose ranges (from 1.23 to 19.183 mGy). Following a similar approach as our previous study, 17 the correlation between the absorbed doses and TLDs responses was determined (Equation ) by fitting a curve to the data. $$$R(nC)=\,69.4(\mathrm{nC}/\mathrm{mGy})\,\times \,D\,(\mathrm{mGy})\mbox{--}\,55.8(\mathrm{nC})\,,$$$where R represents TLD readings in nano‐Columb (nC) and X represents the dose in mGy 17 …”

“…Given their small size and effective atomic number similar to soft tissues, the radiation field remains unperturbed by these chips. To compensate for the potential variations in the sensitivity of TLD chips, initially calculated ECC (element correction coefficient) factors in our previous study 17 were used. To establish the calibration curve, chips were organized into 20 groups of 5 and subjected to various X‐ray doses falling within the diagnostic radiology dose ranges (from 1.23 to 19.183 mGy).…”

“…To establish the calibration curve, chips were organized into 20 groups of 5 and subjected to various X‐ray doses falling within the diagnostic radiology dose ranges (from 1.23 to 19.183 mGy). Following a similar approach as our previous study, 17 the correlation between the absorbed doses and TLDs responses was determined (Equation 1 ) by fitting a curve to the data. where R represents TLD readings in nano‐Columb (nC) and X represents the dose in mGy.…”

“…where R represents TLD readings in nano-Columb (nC) and X represents the dose in mGy. 17 To determine the primary ESD for each study, a set of three chips enclosed in a radiolucent bag was placed on the phantom body in the middle of the radiation field. Additionally, three other chips were also positioned on the pubic symphysis to measure the scattered radiation dose associated with each study.…”