Konversionsfaktoren zur Ermittlung der effektiven Dosis für Patienten aus dem Dosisflächenprodukt bei Röntgendurchleuchtungsuntersuchungen

Gosch, D.; Gosch, K.; Kahn, Thomas

doi:10.1055/s-2007-963237

Cited by 25 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Effective dose can be assessed by three methods: (1) measurements in physical anthropomorphic phantoms using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), (2) by multiplying DAP by a conversion factor. Multiple sources of conversion factors exist but the most widely used are those proposed by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) [81] and (3) by Monte Carlo based computer simulation codes such as WinODS [82], PCXMC [83] and XDOSE [84] which are fed with data of DAP for each projection, tube potential, field sizes and patient data. Skin dose is usually assessed by peak skin dose (measured in Gy) which is the highest absorbed dose received by any location on the patient’s skin and is thought to be best predictor of skin injury.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Cardiology Procedures

Pantos¹,

Patatoukas²,

Katritsis³

et al. 2009

CCR

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventional cardiology procedures result in substantial patient radiation doses due to prolonged fluoroscopy time and radiographic exposure. The procedures that are most frequently performed are coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary interventions, diagnostic electrophysiology studies and radiofrequency catheter ablation. Patient radiation dose in these procedures can be assessed either by measurements on a series of patients in real clinical practice or measurements using patient-equivalent phantoms. In this article we review the derived doses at non-pediatric patients from 72 relevant studies published during the last 22 years in international scientific literature. Published results indicate that patient radiation doses vary widely among the different interventional cardiology procedures but also among equivalent studies. Discrepancies of the derived results are patient-, procedure-, physician-, and fluoroscopic equipmentrelated. Nevertheless, interventional cardiology procedures can subject patients to considerable radiation doses. Efforts to minimize patient exposure should always be undertaken.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Cardiology Procedures

Pantos¹,

Patatoukas²,

Katritsis³

et al. 2009

CCR

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept for fluoroscopic examinations [13] may be applied, but in this case there is only information regarding standard projections (a. p., p. a., lat.). Thus, the concept may be insufficient for CBCT dose calculations.…”

Section: Dose Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Radiation Dose from Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Multidetector Computed Tomography in Examinations of the Hand

Neubauer

Gerstmair

et al. 2016

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Comparison of radiation dose of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in examinations of the hand. Materials and Methods: Dose calculations were carried out by means of Monte Carlo simulations in MDCT and CBCT. A corpse hand was examined in a 320-row MDCT scanner and a dedicated extremities CBCT scanner with standard protocols and multiple low-dose protocols. The image quality of the examinations was evaluated by 5 investigators using a Likert scale from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor) regarding depiction of cortical bone, cancellous bone, joint surfaces, soft tissues and artifacts. For a sum of ratings of all structures

show abstract

“…24 Therefore, the estimated reduction of K a,r nearly equals the skin dose reduction, while the influence on the effective dose is smaller due to the higher tube voltage and beam hardening used by CEC. 25 Even higher K a,r reductions will result when, according to ALARA principle, the CEC maintains the constant image quality independent of PET, while DEC produces images of unnecessary high quality and higher dose in thinner body regions (Figure 5). At high PET CEC can deliver images at higher image quality compared to DEC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of a contrast‐to‐noise ratio‐driven exposure control and a regular detector dose‐driven exposure control in abdominal imaging in a clinical angiography system

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first purpose of this phantom study was to verify whether a contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)-driven exposure control (CEC) can maintain target CNR in angiography more precisely compared to a conventional detector dose-driven exposure control (DEC). The second purpose was to estimate the difference between incident air kerma produced by CEC and DEC when both exposure controls reach the same CNR. Methods: A standardized 3D-printed phantom with an iron foil and a cavity, filled with iodinated contrast material, was developed to measure CNR using different image acquisition settings. This phantom was placed into a stack of polymethylmethacrylate and aluminum plates, simulating a patient equivalent thickness (PET) of 2.5-40 cm. Images were acquired using fluoroscopy and digital radiography modes with CEC using one image quality level and four image quality gradients and DEC having three different detector dose levels. The spatial frequency weighted CNR and incident air kerma were determined. The differences in incident air kerma between DEC and CEC were estimated. Results: When using DEC, CNR decreased continuously with increasing attenuation, while CEC within physical limits maintained a predefined CNR level. Furthermore, CEC could be parameterized to deliver the CNR as a predefined function of PET. To provide a given CNR level, CEC used equal or lower air kerma than DEC. The mean estimated incident air kerma of CEC compared to DEC was between 3% (PET 20 cm) and 40% (PET 27.5 cm) lower in fluoroscopy and between 1% (PET 20 cm) and 55% (PET 2.5 cm) lower in digital radiography while maintaining CNR. Conclusion: Within physical and legislative limits, the CEC allows for a flexible adjustment of the CNR as a function of PET. Thus, the CEC enables taskdependent examination protocols with predefined image quality in order to easier achieve the as low as reasonably achievable principle. CEC required equal or lower incident air kerma than DEC to provide similar CNR, which allows for a substantial reduction of skin radiation dose in these situations.

show abstract

Konversionsfaktoren zur Ermittlung der effektiven Dosis für Patienten aus dem Dosisflächenprodukt bei Röntgendurchleuchtungsuntersuchungen

Cited by 25 publications

References 12 publications

Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Cardiology Procedures

Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Cardiology Procedures

Comparison of the Radiation Dose from Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Multidetector Computed Tomography in Examinations of the Hand

Comparison of a contrast‐to‐noise ratio‐driven exposure control and a regular detector dose‐driven exposure control in abdominal imaging in a clinical angiography system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About