Health  Vol.8 No.10 , July 2016
A Derived Exposure Chart for Computed Radiography in a Negroid Population
Abstract: Background: Computed radiography has a wider exposure latitude when compared with film-screen imaging system. Consequently, the risk of dose creep is high. A conscientious effort is there-fore, needed by the radiographer to keep exposure as low as reasonably achievable. Objective: To derive a computed radiography exposure chart for a negroid population using AGFA photostimulable phosphor plates and a GE static X-ray machine. Materials and Method: A static X-ray machine, a digitizer, and photostimulable phosphor plates were used for the X-ray examination. Chest examinations were done at a Focus-Film-Distance (FFD) of 150 - 180 cm while all other examinations were conducted at 90 - 100 cm FFD. The range of exposure factors (kVp, mA and mAs) used by radiog-raphers in the centre was noted and the 90th percentile calculated. Over a three-month period, the patients were examined with the 90th percentile of tube potential (kVp) while keeping other factors constant. The kVp was gradually decreased and halted if radiologists and radiographers uncon-nected with the work expressed misgivings about the quality of the image. A similar procedure was adopted for the tube current (mA). The threshold adopted as low as reasonably achievable was the factor preceding the point of observation by other personnel. Metrics for central tendency from the statistical packages for social sciences, version 17.0 was used to analyze the data. Results: 335 subjects of both gender aged 0 - 92 years were examined by the researchers. Adult exposure factors used by the radiographers (and those derived by the researchers) had a range of 45 - 130 kVp (62 - 94 kVp), 63 - 320 mA (100 - 250 mA) and 4.0 - 25.0 mAs (5.0 - 20.0 mAs) respectively. Pediatric chest (and researchers-derived) factors were 50 - 75 kVp (52 - 65 kVp), 50 - 250 mA (100 - 220 mA) and 3.20 - 10.0 mAs (3.2 - 6.5 mAs) respectively. Conclusion: Upper threshold of adult (and paediatric) exposure factors in computed radiography with comparable equipment and accessories should not exceed 94 kVp (65 kVp), 250 mA (220 mA) and 20.0 mAs (6.5 mAs) respectively. The derived exposure chart is also adequate to address motion unsharpness in chest examinations.
Cite this paper: Adejoh, T. , Ewuzie, O. , Ogbonna, J. , Nwefuru, S. and Onuegbu, N. (2016) A Derived Exposure Chart for Computed Radiography in a Negroid Population. Health, 8, 953-958. doi: 10.4236/health.2016.810098.

[1]   Samei, E., Seibert, J.A., Willis, C.E., Flynn, M.J., Mah, E. and Junck, K.L. (2001) Performance Evaluation of Computed Radiography Systems. Medical Physics, 28, 361-371.

[2]   Sonoda, M., Takano, M., Miyahara, J. and Kato, H. (1983) Computed Radiography Utilizing Scanning Laser Stimulated Luminescence. Radiology, 148, 833-838.

[3]   Butler, M.L., Rainford, L., Last, J. and Brennan, P.C. (2010) Are Exposure Index Values Consistent in Clinical Practice? A Multi-Manufacturer Investigation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 139, 371-374.

[4]   Seibert, J.A., Shelton, D.K. and Moore, E.H. (1996) Computed Radiography X-Ray Exposure Trends. Academic Radiology, 3, 313-318.

[5]   Freedman, E.P., Mun, S.K., La, S.C.B. and Nelson, M. (1993) The Potential for Unnecessary Patient Exposure from the Use of Storage Phosphor Imaging Systems. SPIE Medical Imaging, 1897, 472-479.

[6]   Thakur, Y., Bjarnason, T.A., Hammerstrom, K., Marchinkow, L., Koch, T. and Aldrich, J.E. (2012) Assessment of Patient Doses in CR Examinations throughout a Large Health Region. Journal of Digital Imaging, 25, 189-195.

[7]   Heath, R., England, A., Ward, A., et al. (2011) Digital Pelvic Radiography: Increasing Distance to Reduce Dose. Radiologic Technology, 83, 20-28.

[8]   Ching, W., Robinson, J. and McEntee, M.F. (2015) DigiBit: A System for Adjusting Radiographic Exposure Factors in the Digital Era. Radiologic Technology, 86, 614-622.

[9]   Gibson, D.J. and Davidson, R.A. (2012) Exposure Creep in Computed Radiography: A Longitudinal Study. Academic Radiology, 19, 458-462.

[10]   Herrmann, T.L., Fauber, T.L., Gill, J., et al. (2012) Best Practices in Digital Radiography. Radiologic Technology, 84, 83-89.

[11]   Williams, M.B., Krupinski, E.A., Strauss, K.J., Breeden, W.K., Rzeszotarski, M.S., Applegate, K., Wyatt, M., Bjork, S. and Seibert, J.A. (2007) Digital Radiography Image Quality: Image Acquisition. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 4, 371-388.

[12]   Fauber, T.L., Cohen, T.F. and Dempsey, M.C. (2011) High Kilovoltage Digital Exposure Techniques and Patient Dosimetry. Radiologic Technology, 82, 501-510.

[13]   Simon, M. (1956) Exposure Factor Selection by Means of a New Calculator. British Journal of Radiology, 29, 588- 595.

[14]   Gyss, E.E. (1957) A Medical Radiographic Technique Chart Based on Constants. X-Ray Technician, 29, 76-80.

[15]   Power, K.J. (1959) A Simple Measuring Device for the Busy Department. Radiographer, 7, 16-17.

[16]   Compagnone, G., Baleni, M.C., Pagan, L., Calzolaio, F., Barozzi, L. and Bergamini, C. (2006) Comparison of Radiation Doses to Patients Undergoing Standard Radiographic Examinations with Conventional Screen-Film Radiography, Computed Radiography and Direct Digital Radiography. British Journal of Radiology, 79, 899-904.

[17]   Martin, C.J., Darragh, C.L., McKenzie ,G.A. and Bayliss, A.P. (1993) Implementation of a Programme for Reduction of Radiographic Doses and Results through Increase in Tube Potential. British Journal of Radiology, 66, 228-233.

[18]   Ma, W.K., Hogg, P., Tootell, A., Manning, D., Thomas, N., Kane, T. and Kelly, J. (2013) Anthropomorphic Chest Phantom Imaging: The Potential for Dose Creep in Computed Radiography. Radiography, 19, 207-211.