BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online August 2, 2006
British Journal of Radiology (2007) 80, 107-112
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/87150291
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tsapaki, V
Right arrow Articles by Koulentianos, E D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tsapaki, V
Right arrow Articles by Koulentianos, E D

Full paper

Radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations: a comparison between two methods

V Tsapaki, MSc, PhD1, I A Tsalafoutas, MSc, PhD1, I Chinofoti, Tec2, A Karageorgi, Tec2, E Carinou, MSc, PhD3, V Kamenopoulou, MSc, PhD3, E N Yakoumakis, MSc, PhD4 and E D Koulentianos, MD2

1 Medical Physics Unit and 2 Radiology Department, General Hospital 'Konstantopoulio-Agia Olga', Athens, 3 Greek Atomic Energy Commission, Agia Paraskevi, Athens, and 4 Department of Medical Physics, Medical School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Correspondence: Dr Virginia Tsapaki, Medical Physics Unit, General Hospital 'Konstantopoulio-Agia Olga', 3-5 Agias Olgas Str., Nea Ionia 14233, Athens, Greece. E-mail: virginia{at}otenet.gr

The objective of the study was to derive a mathematical method for calculating the entrance surface dose (ESD) from exposure factors for all tube potentials used in clinical practice and to compare the calculated ESDs (ESDC) with those measured (ESDTLD) using thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs). The exposure parameters of 43 patients who underwent (a) posteroanterior (PA) and lateral (LAT) chest examination (13 patients), (b) supine abdomen (10 patients), (c) erectus abdomen (10 patients), or (d) urinary tract examination (10 patients) were recorded. Patient ESD was directly measured by TLDs and calculated from exposure factors. The differences between ESDC and ESDTLD were quite small and could be explained by the uncertainties involved in both methods, in all but the PA chest examination where the ESDC was about 50% larger than ESDTLD. However, in PA chest the ESDTLD was close to the minimum detectable dose of TLDs, questioning the accuracy of ESDTLD. Further investigation showed that using the high tube potential technique (130 kV) in the PA chest examination resulted in very short exposure times, in the region of 4 ms. In such short exposure times, the X-ray generator operation presented stability problems that led to loss of output linearity and consequently to false calculation of ESD. The calculation method offers a reliable and cheap alternative to the measurement of ESD by TLD, provided that the exposure times are not as short as in the PA chest examinations recorded in this study, so that the output linearity with tube current–time product (mAs) is maintained.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.