Protocol for measurement of patient entrance surface dose rates for fluoroscopic X-ray equipment.

Martin, C J; Sutton, D.; Workman, A; Shaw, Aidan; Temperton, D.H.

doi:10.1259/bjr.71.852.10319002

Cited by 38 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This allows a controlled approach to the measurements to be taken without introducing variabilities such as patient differences or clinical procedural factors. The measurement protocol employed broadly followed that described by Martin et al [13]. For each operating mode of the systems, three phantom configurations were used, simulating an average patient, a large patient, and one designed to drive the system at its maximum dose rates.…”

Section: Phantom Dose Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent introduction of "flat-panel detector" (FD)-based cardiac catheterisation laboratories should offer improvements in image quality and/or dose efficiency over X-ray systems of conventional design. We compared three X-ray systems, one image-intensifier (II)-based system (system A), and two FD-based designs (systems B and C), assessing their image quality and dose efficiency. Phantom measurements were performed to assess dose rates in fluoroscopy and cine acquisition. Phantom dose rates were broadly similar for all systems, with all systems classified as offering "low" dose rates in fluoroscopy on standard phantoms. Patient X-ray dose rate and subjective image quality was assessed for 90 patients. Dose area product (DAP) rates were similar for all systems, except system C, which had a lower DAP rate in fluoroscopy. In terms of subjective image quality, the order of preference was (best to worst): system C, system A, system B. This study indicates that the use of an FD detector does not infer an automatic improvement in image quality or dose efficiency over II based designs. Specification and configuration of all of the components in the X-ray system contribute to the dose levels used and image quality achieved.

show abstract

Section: Phantom Dose Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data were obtained using the default "standard" (no added filter) and the modified "filtered" (0.1 mm Cu + 1.0 mm Al filters added) acquisition modes for two separate study elements: a phantom dose study using the national standard measurement techniques [30], and a clinical study of patient dose rates and image quality using a double blinded subjective assessment. In both these study elements, results from the two different acquisition modes were compared in order to determine the effect of the added filtration on clinical image quality and patient dose.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…skin dose) rates were measured using protocol outlined by the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) working group, Martin et al [30]. A polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom was used to simulate a "standard" and "large" patient in the posterioranterior (PA) projection, using 20 cm and 30 cm high stacks of PMMA blocks respectively, with the C-arm rotated to place the X-ray tube near the floor underneath the phantom.…”

Section: Phantom Dosementioning

confidence: 99%

Does the use of additional X-ray beam filtration during cine acquisition reduce clinical image quality and effective dose in cardiac interventional imaging?

Davies

Gislason‐Lee

Cowen

et al. 2014

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of spectral filtration in digital ("cine") acquisition was investigated using a flat panel cardiac interventional X-ray imaging system. A 0.1 mm Cu and 1.0 mm Al filter added to the standard acquisition mode created the filtered mode for comparison. Image sequences of 35 patients were acquired; a double blind subjective image quality assessment was completed and dose area product (DAP) rates were calculated. Entrance surface dose (ESD) and effective dose (E) rates were determined for 20 and 30 cm phantoms. Phantom ESD fell by 28% and 41% and E by 1% and 0.7 %, for the 20 and 30 cm phantoms respectively when using the filtration. Patient DAP rates fell by 43% with no statistically significant difference in clinical image quality. Adding 0.1 mm Cu and 1.0 mm Al filtration in acquisition substantially reduces patient ESD and DAP, with no significant change in E or clinical image quality.

show abstract

“…Routine quality assurance (QA) tests for radiographic, mammographic, and fluoroscopic AEC systems are well established and documented in the literature 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 . In addition, standard AEC test objects, generally consisting of acrylic blocks, copper sheets or water phantoms, are also available for such X‐ray systems 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, standard AEC test objects, generally consisting of acrylic blocks, copper sheets or water phantoms, are also available for such X‐ray systems 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 . However, there is currently no standardized QA test for CT AEC systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A routine quality assurance test for CT automatic exposure control systems

Iball

Moore

Crawford

2016

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study purpose was to develop and validate a quality assurance test for CT automatic exposure control (AEC) systems based on a set of nested polymethylmethacrylate CTDI phantoms. The test phantom was created by offsetting the 16 cm head phantom within the 32 cm body annulus, thus creating a three part phantom. This was scanned at all acceptance, routine, and some nonroutine quality assurance visits over a period of 45 months, resulting in 115 separate AEC tests on scanners from four manufacturers. For each scan the longitudinal mA modulation pattern was generated and measurements of image noise were made in two annular regions of interest. The scanner displayed CTDIvol and DLP were also recorded. The impact of a range of AEC configurations on dose and image quality were assessed at acceptance testing. For systems that were tested more than once, the percentage of CTDIvol values exceeding 5%, 10%, and 15% deviation from baseline was 23.4%, 12.6%, and 8.1% respectively. Similarly, for the image noise data, deviations greater than 2%, 5%, and 10% from baseline were 26.5%, 5.9%, and 2%, respectively. The majority of CTDIvol and noise deviations greater than 15% and 5%, respectively, could be explained by incorrect phantom setup or protocol selection. Barring these results, CTDIvol deviations of greater than 15% from baseline were found in 0.9% of tests and noise deviations greater than 5% from baseline were found in 1% of tests. The phantom was shown to be sensitive to changes in AEC setup, including the use of 3D, longitudinal or rotational tube current modulation. This test methodology allows for continuing performance assessment of CT AEC systems, and we recommend that this test should become part of routine CT quality assurance programs. Tolerances of ±15% for CTDIvol and ±5% for image noise relative to baseline values should be used.PACS number(s): 87.57.Q‐

show abstract

Protocol for measurement of patient entrance surface dose rates for fluoroscopic X-ray equipment.

Cited by 38 publications

References 1 publication

Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality

Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality

Does the use of additional X-ray beam filtration during cine acquisition reduce clinical image quality and effective dose in cardiac interventional imaging?

A routine quality assurance test for CT automatic exposure control systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About