This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yakoumakis, E Articles by Proukakis, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yakoumakis, E Articles by Proukakis, C.

Differences in effective dose estimation from dose–area product and entrance surface dose measurements in intravenous urography

¹Medical Physics Department, Medical School, University of Athens, 75 Mikras Asias, 115 27 Athens and ²Radiology Department and Medical Physics Unit, Konstantopoulio — Agia Olga Hospital, 3–5 Agias Olga, Nea Ionia, 142 33 Athens, Greece

In this study, measurements of dose–area product (DAP) and entrance surface dose (ESD) were carried out in a sample of 25 adult patients who underwent intravenous urography (IVU). These measured quantities were used to estimate the effective dose E from the IVU examination, a quantity closely correlated to radiation risk. Estimating E involves the use of conversion coefficients that have been determined for specific X-ray views in a mathematical phantom. These are obtained under conditions which are not usually met in clinical practice. As a result, the E estimates using the two different measurable quantities can be quite different. Analysis of the calculation procedure suggests that the E estimate using the DAP measurements, in addition to being more practical, could be more accurate than using ESD measurements, as DAP is sensitive to the X-ray field size settings. Furthermore, it is shown that in the absence of the appropriate equipment, a reliable E estimate can be obtained from the ESD calculated using the exposure data for each X-ray view.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Niemann, T. Kollmann, and G. Bongartz Reply Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2009; 192(3): W143 - W144. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Niemann, T. Kollmann, and G. Bongartz Diagnostic Performance of Low-Dose CT for the Detection of Urolithiasis: A Meta-Analysis Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 396 - 401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Jaffe, A. M. Gaca, S. Delaney, T. T. Yoshizumi, G. Toncheva, G. Nguyen, and D. P. Frush Radiation Doses from Small-Bowel Follow-Through and Abdominopelvic MDCT in Crohn's Disease Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1015 - 1022. [Abstract] [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]

				R. D. Nawfel, P. F. Judy, A. R. Schleipman, and S. G. Silverman Patient Radiation Dose at CT Urography and Conventional Urography Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 126 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D Bor, T Sancak, T Olgar, Y Elcim, A Adanali, U Sanlidilek, and S Akyar Comparison of effective doses obtained from dose-area product and air kerma measurements in interventional radiology Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2004; 77(916): 315 - 322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]