A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality.

Cervical discectomy and fusion (CDF) is a minimally invasive procedure, where the accurate placement of the implants is accomplished using fluoroscopic guidance. Therefore, the evaluation of the radiation dose becomes mandatory. The purpose of the current study was to assess patient dose during fluoroscopically guided anterior and/or posterior CDF procedures. Thirty-three patients undergoing single or multiple-level CDF were studied using a mobile C-arm system. Data regarding fluoroscopy time (FT), air kerma area product (KAP) and cumulative dose (CD) were recorded. Patient entrance surface dose (ESD), thyroid absorbed dose and effective dose (ED) were calculated from KAP measurements, utilizing the CALDoseX software. The average FT was 0.12 min (range 0.02-0.48 min), resulting to a KAP value of 0.21 Gy cm2 (range 0.01-1.46 Gy cm2) and a CD value of 0.96 mGy (range 0.04-6.58 mGy). The ESD ranged between 0.08 and 13.58 mGy (average 1.95 mGy), the ED between 0.001 and 0.097 mSv (average 0.015 mSv), while the dose absorbed by the thyroid ranged between 0.01 and 1.12 mGy (average 0.194 mGy). The dose associated with the CDF procedure is very low, comparable to that delivered by a lateral X-ray radiograph of the cervical spine. However, higher doses can be revealed, due to the non-optimum use of the X-ray system and extended FTs, mainly affected by complex clinical conditions, as well as the experience of the neurosurgeon. Additional studies need to be conducted for further investigation of the patient dose from the CDF procedure.

Dose audit is important towards optimisation of patients’ radiation protection in diagnostic radiography. In this study, the effect of the body mass index (BMI) on radiation dose received by 1869 adult patients undergoing chest, abdomen, lumbar spine, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) and pelvis radiography in an X-ray room with a digital radiography system was investigated. Patients were categorised into three groups (normal, overweight and obese) based on the BMI values. The patients’ entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output, exposure parameters and technical data, as well as utilising appropriate conversion coefficients of the recorded kerma area product (KAP) values. The local diagnostic reference levels (LDRLs) were established at the 75th percentile of the distribution of ESAK and KAP values. Statistically, a significant increase was found in ESAK, KAP and ED values, for all examinations, both for overweight and obese patients compared to normal patients (Mann–Whitney test, p < 0.0001). Regarding the gender of the patients, a statistically significant increase was found in the dose values for male patients compared to female patients, except for the chest LAT examinations (Mann–Whitney test, p = 0.06). The percentage increase for chest PA, chest LAT, abdomen AP, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP and KUB AP in overweight patients was 75%, 100%, 136%, 130%, 70%, 66% and 174% for median ESAK, 67%, 81%, 135%, 134%, 85%, 63% and 172% for median KAP, as well as 89%, 54%, 146%, 138%, 82%, 57% and 183% for median ED values, respectively. For obese patients, the corresponding increases were 200%, 186%, 459%, 345%, 203%, 150% and 785% for median ESAK, 200%, 185%, 423%, 357%, 227%, 142% and 597% for median KAP, as well as 222%, 156%, 446%, 363%, 218%, 136% and 625% for median ED. The corresponding LDRLs for overweight patients were 0.17 mGy, 1.21 mGy, 3.74 mGy, 7.70 mGy, 7.99 mGy, 4.07mGy, 5.03 mGy and 0.13 Gy cm2, 0.69 Gy cm2, 2.35 Gy cm2, 2.10 Gy cm2, 2.59 Gy cm2, 2.13 Gy cm2, 2.49 Gy cm2 in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively, while in the case of obese patients were 0.28 mGy, 1.82 mGy, 7.26 mGy, 15.10 mGy, 13.86 mGy, 6.89 mGy, 13.40 mGy and 0.21 Gy cm2, 1.10 Gy cm2, 4.68 Gy cm2, 4.01 Gy cm2, 4.80 Gy cm2, 3.27 Gy cm2, 6.02 Gy cm2, respectively. It can be concluded that overweight and obese patients received a significantly increased radiation dose. Careful adjustment of imaging protocols is needed for these patients to reduce patient dose, while keeping the image quality at an acceptable level. Additional studies need to be conducted for these patient groups, that could further contribute to the development of radiation protection culture in diagnostic radiography.

No abstract

No abstract