The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 70, Issue 835 708-718, Copyright © 1997 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Computing patient doses of X-ray examinations using a patient size- and sex-adjustable phantom

S Rannikko, I Ermakov, JS Lampinen, M Toivonen, KT Karila and A Chervjakov
Institute of Biomedicine, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Both the use of traditional fluoroscopy and the increasing use of modern digital techniques in radiology and interventional radiology demand the development of versatile computer programs for patient dose determinations. Long computing times restrict the use of Monte Carlo (MC) methods in dose monitoring applications where the radiological views change frequently. In the Organ Doses Calculation Software application (ODS-60), the phantom model is similar in principle to the Alderson-Rando (A-R) phantom, but its sex, size and shape is modified according to a particular patient. Organ and effective doses are computed online (in a few seconds) using a method similar to the traditional dose planning systems used in radiotherapy. In this paper, the new ODS-60 software is presented in detail and its capabilities are demonstrated. Software performance was determined by comparing the results with those from independent methods. In the case of a reference man-sized male, the effective dose was about 7% larger than the effective dose given in another publication. In the case of a reference woman-sized female, the disagreement with the other method was greater (33%). Anatomical differences between the phantom models (ODS-60 and MC) were found to be the main reasons for these findings. This paper shows the advantage of using a patient size- and sex-adaptable phantom for patient dose determinations; the conversion coefficient from entrance surface dose-to-effective dose ratio between male (170 cm, 85 kg) and a female (160 cm, 43 kg) varies in the range 1.5-2.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. C. Yanch, R. H. Behrman, M. J. Hendricks, and J. H. McCall Increased Radiation Dose to Overweight and Obese Patients from Radiographic Examinations Radiology, July 1, 2009; 252(1): 128 - 139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. R. Verdun, F. Bochud, F. Gundinchet, A. Aroua, P. Schnyder, and R. Meuli Quality Initiatives Radiation Risk: What You Should Know to Tell Your Patient1 RadioGraphics, November 1, 2008; 28(7): 1807 - 1816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. R. Verdun, F. Bochud, F. Gudinchet, A. Aroua, P. Schnyder, and R. Meuli Radiation Risk: What You Should Know to Tell Your Patient RadioGraphics, September 24, 2008; (2008) 287085042. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				C. J. Martin RADIATION DOSIMETRY FOR DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL EXPOSURES Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 28, 2008; (2008) ncm495v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Martin The application of effective dose to medical exposures Radiat Prot Dosimetry, January 1, 2008; 128(1): 1 - 4. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C J Martin Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2007; 80(956): 639 - 647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Ector, O. Dragusin, B. Adriaenssens, W. Huybrechts, R. Willems, H. Ector, and H. Heidbuchel Obesity Is a Major Determinant of Radiation Dose in Patients Undergoing Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 17, 2007; 50(3): 234 - 242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Moro, C. Cazzani, O. Tomarchio, G. Morone, A. Catona, and D. Fantinato Patient dose during radiological examination in the follow-up of bariatric surgery Radiat Prot Dosimetry, January 1, 2007; 123(1): 113 - 117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. P. Efstathopoulos, D. G. Katritsis, S. Kottou, N. Kalivas, E. Tzanalaridou, E. Giazitzoglou, S. Korovesis, and K. Faulkner Patient and staff radiation dosimetry during cardiac electrophysiology studies and catheter ablation procedures: a comprehensive analysis Europace, June 1, 2006; 8(6): 443 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Karambatsakidou, P Tornvall, N Saleh, T Chouliaras, P-O Lofberg, and A Fransson Skin dose alarm levels in cardiac angiography procedures: is a single DAP value sufficient? Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2005; 78(933): 803 - 809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Bath, M. Hakansson, J. Hansson, and L. G. Mansson A conceptual optimisation strategy for radiography in a digital environment Radiat Prot Dosimetry, May 17, 2005; 114(1-3): 230 - 235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. G. Delichas, K. Hatziioannou, E. Papanastassiou, P. Albanopoulou, E. Chatzi, A. Sioundas, and K. Psarrakos Radiation doses to patients undergoing barium meal and barium enema examinations Radiat Prot Dosimetry, July 1, 2004; 109(3): 243 - 247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S P Waddington and A L McKenzie Assessment of effective dose from concomitant exposures required in verification of the target volume in radiotherapy Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2004; 77(919): 557 - 561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]