Radiation Exposure and Image Quality in X-Ray Diagnostic Radiology

Aichinger, Horst; Dierker, Joachim; Joite-Barfuß, Sigrid; Säbel, Manfred

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-09654-3

Cited by 74 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Subject contrasts in X-ray radiography depend on material thickness, physical density, electron density, elemental composition and X-ray photon energy [17,18]. For a given thickness of an object, the subject contrast is directly proportional to the difference (Dl) between the linear attenuation coefficients (l) of the object and the background [2,18].…”

Section: Approach To Radiopacity Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a given thickness of an object, the subject contrast is directly proportional to the difference (Dl) between the linear attenuation coefficients (l) of the object and the background [2,18]. The use of dense and higher atomic number (Z) elements (typically Z = 72-79 e.g.…”

Section: Approach To Radiopacity Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Typical peak values of the white X-ray photon spectra used for common medical X-ray imaging, except for mammography, lie between 30 and 50 keV when X-ray is generated with a tube voltage between 40 and 120 kVp, respectively [18]. The attenuation of the imaging photon spectra by different filters, the air kernel between the X-ray source and patient, the patient, patient bed and related materials and the air kernel between the bed and detector can all contribute to the so called 'beam hardening' which sees this peak of the photon spectra shifting to a higher energy.…”

Section: Approach To Radiopacity Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Radiopaque Shape Memory Alloys: NiTi–Er with Stable Superelasticity

Tuissi

Carr

Butler

et al. 2016

Shap. Mem. Superelasticity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binary NiTi alloy is one of the most important biomaterials currently used in minimally invasive procedures and indwelling devices. The poor visibility of intermetallic NiTi under X-ray could be an unsatisfactory feature especially for developing low-dimensional implantable devices for the body. It is a matter of fact that the alloying of a third radiopaque element, such as noble or heavy metals, in NiTi can significantly enhance the alloy's radiopacity. Recently, it was demonstrated that the addition of a rare earth element such as Erbium has led to an equivalent radiopacity at a much lower cost than the equivalent addition of noble metals. This work reviews the main physical aspects related to the radiopacity of NiTi alloys and compares the radiopacity of NiTi-Er compositions with other NiTi-based alloys containing Pd, Pt, W and Cr. Furthermore, a NiTi-6Er alloy is produced by spark plasma sintering, and successfully processed by conventional hot and cold working procedures to a continuous wire showing stable superelastic behaviour (up to 4 % in strain), suitable for developing biomedical devices.

show abstract

Section: Approach To Radiopacity Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approach To Radiopacity Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approach To Radiopacity Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiopaque Shape Memory Alloys: NiTi–Er with Stable Superelasticity

Tuissi

Carr

Butler

et al. 2016

Shap. Mem. Superelasticity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is to say that in the first place there is a concern related to the risk of a diagnostic error or to obtaining incomplete information; in the second place the concern is with the doses (in patients, workers and individuals in general); and in third place operational costs. To achieve these goals it is necessary to control the radiodiagnostic services in terms of equipment calibration, personnel training and the setting up of quality guarantee programs (WHO, 1982;Gray et al, 1983;Opas, 1997, Stevens, 2001BIR, 2001;Aichinger et al, 2004).…”

Section: Control Of Health Risks In X-ray Diagnosticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controle de riscos à saúde em radiodiagnóstico: uma perspectiva histórica

Navarro

Leite

Alexandrino

et al. 2008

Hist. cienc. saude-Manguinhos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apresenta o histórico da descoberta das radiações ionizantes, seus efeitos biológicos e a conseqüente necessidade de controle dos respectivos riscos à saúde. Descreve a evolução histórica do controle de risco em radiodiagnóstico no Brasil, demonstrando que este pode não estar associado apenas à dose recebida, mas também a erros de diagnóstico e a custos para o sistema de saúde. Salienta que a legislação sanitária tem um amplo leque de co-responsabilidade social para envolver todos os atores visando à proteção da saúde.

show abstract

“…A significant fraction of the gonadal dose in both genders is from internal scatter, which is not attenuated by a properly placed gonadal shield. Therefore, the estimated radiation dose of the shielded gonads is not 0.6% of the entrance skin dose, but approximately 50% [2] (assuming proper positioning of the shields).The significance of a radiation dose to the gonads has been stated as follows: "The absolute risk of passing mutated genetic material to subsequent generations remains at 0.2% per Gy exposed" [3]. However, taking the maximum radiographs some neonates in this series received (60), at a gonadal dose of 13-50 μGy, the maximum gonadal dose would be 3 mGy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gonadal shielding for neonates

Slovis

Strauss

2013

Pediatr Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We read with great interest the article by Winfeld et al. [1] on gonadal shielding in neonates, in this issue of Pediatric Radiology.The topic is quite pertinent and involves several questions:1. Is gonadal shielding in neonates effective in significantly lowering the radiation dose? 2. Is achieving optimal position of the shields (1/3 were misplaced) worth the effort considering the small dose reduction and the small risk of missing something? 3. Is there a better way to reduce radiation exposure to neonates? 4. Has legislation addressed the problem but offered the wrong solution, or have we misinterpreted the law?The reported actual entrance skin dose from a neonatal abdominal radiograph is small (20-80 μGy, 2-8 mrads). With proper collimation, added filtration, and technique selection the gonadal dose without lead shielding from the examination should be 25-50 μGy for boys and 13-25 μGy for girls. The reduced dose for girls results from 3 to 4 cm of soft tissue that naturally shields the female gonads. A significant fraction of the gonadal dose in both genders is from internal scatter, which is not attenuated by a properly placed gonadal shield. Therefore, the estimated radiation dose of the shielded gonads is not 0.6% of the entrance skin dose, but approximately 50% [2] (assuming proper positioning of the shields).The significance of a radiation dose to the gonads has been stated as follows: "The absolute risk of passing mutated genetic material to subsequent generations remains at 0.2% per Gy exposed" [3]. However, taking the maximum radiographs some neonates in this series received (60), at a gonadal dose of 13-50 μGy, the maximum gonadal dose would be 3 mGy. Assuming the quoted risk of passing mutated genetic material to subsequent generations is correct, the estimated risk from 60 unshielded images is 1 out of 167,000, a quite small risk! It seems to us that our efforts to lower the radiation dose should be spent reducing the number of radiographs as compared to teaching (successfully or unsuccessfully, not mentioned in the article) proper positioning of a gonadal shield. We must also teach proper collimation of images. We believe that these steps, when taught successfully, along with the elimination of repeat exposures as a result of an improperly placed gonadal shield, will have a greater effect in reducing radiation dose than placing gonadal shields.We applaud the authors' efforts in considering radiation dose reduction to the vulnerable neonate and in trying to comply with the legislative demands. However, the legislative mandate seems inappropriate or over-interpreted because the law states "except for cases in which this would interfere with the diagnostic procedure" [3]. In the case of a neonate the use of a gonadal shield serves little purpose and the potential for missing something is probably as great or greater a concern than the effects of gonadal irradiation. We (pediatric radiologists) as experts need to work with legislators to make sure an appropriate, effective, evidence-based mandate ev...

show abstract

Radiation Exposure and Image Quality in X-Ray Diagnostic Radiology

Cited by 74 publications

References 0 publications

Radiopaque Shape Memory Alloys: NiTi–Er with Stable Superelasticity

Radiopaque Shape Memory Alloys: NiTi–Er with Stable Superelasticity

Controle de riscos à saúde em radiodiagnóstico: uma perspectiva histórica

Gonadal shielding for neonates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About