IJMPCERO  Vol.5 No.4 , November 2016
Assessment of ESAK and ED for Adult’s Patients Examined by Computed Radiography
Abstract: This study designed to evaluate the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) to the patient during X-ray examination to the skull antero-posterior (AP), skull Lateral (LAT), chest postero-anterior (PA), Lumber spine AP/LAT and Pelvis AP. Totally, 408 patients were included in this study using computed radiography (CR) in different three hospitals in Khartoum; five X-ray machines were covered. The entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) was calculated for each patient from the exposure parameters using different peak tube voltages. Patient’s data such as (age and weight) and exposure parameters (kVp) and (mAs) were recorded. The result obtained showed that, the entrance surface air kerma ranged from 0.88 to 3.30 mGy for Skull (AP), 0.588 to 1.87 mGy for skull (LAT), 0.03 to 2 mGy for chest PA, 1.50 to 3.40 mGy Lumbar spine AP, 2.60 to 5.15 mGy for Lumbar spine (LAT), and 1.05 to 4.40 mGy for Pelvis. This study provides additional data that can help the regulatory authority to establish reference dose level for diagnostic radiology in Sudan. This study recommends that the CR operator must be used to optimize the patient dose by using the best strategies available for reducing radiation dose. Computed radiography must be used with high level training for medical staff to reduce the dose; each radiology department should implement a patient dose measurement quality assurance programme. Doses to the patients should be regularly monitored and the proposed national DRLs should be taken as guidance for optimization.
Cite this paper: Alameen, S. , A. Badrey, F. , Abdullateef, A. and Ahmed, A. (2016) Assessment of ESAK and ED for Adult’s Patients Examined by Computed Radiography. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 5, 281-287. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2016.54028.

[1]   Sanada, S., Doi, K., Xu, X.-W., Yin, F.-F., Giger, M.L. and MacMahon, H. (1991) Comparison of Imaging Properties of a Computed Radiography System and Screen-Film Systems. Medical Physics, 18, 414-420.

[2]   Barnes, G.T. (1993) Digital X-Ray Image Capture with Image Intensifier and Storage Phosphor Plates: Imaging Principles, Performance and Limitations Digital Imaging (AAPM Monograph No. 22). Hendee, W.R. and Trueblood, J.H., Eds., Medical Physics, Madison, 23-48.

[3]   Fujita, H., Ueda, K., Morishita, J., Fujikawa, T., Ohtsuka, A. and Sai, T. (1989) Basic Imaging Properties of a Computed Radiographic System with Photostimulable Phosphors. Medical Physics, 16, 52-59.

[4]   International Commission on Radiological Protection (2003) Managing Patient Dose in Digital Radiology. Elsevier: ICRP Publication, 93.

[5]   Lu, Z., Nickoloff, E., So, J. and Dutta, A. (2002) Comparison of Computed Radiography and Film Screen Combination Using a Contrast Detail Phantom. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 1, 91-96.

[6]   Willis, C. (2002) Computed Radiography: A Higher Dose? Pediatric Radiology, 32, 745-850.
Seibert, A. (2004) Computed Radiography Technology. Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center Sacramento, California.

[7]   Peters, S. and Brennan, P. (2002) Digital Radiography: Are the Manufacturers’ Settings Too High? Optimisation of the Kodak Digital Radiography System with Aid of the Computed Radiography Dose Index. European Radiology, 12, 2381-2387.

[8]   Kodak (2001) Guidelines for Acceptance Testing and Quality Control. Kodak Directview CR 800 System and Kodak Directview CR 900 System.

[9]   Nakajima, N., Takeo, H., Ishida, M. and Nagata, T. (1995) Fuji Computed Radiography: Technical Review No.3. In: Automatic Setting Functions for Image Density and Range in the FCR System, Fuji Photo Film Co., Japan.

[10]   International Commission on Radiation Measurements and Units (2006) Patient Dosimetry for X-Rays Used in Medical Imaging. ICRU Report No. 74, ICRU, Bethesda, MD.

[11]   International Atomic Energy Agency (2007) Dosimetry in Diagnostic Radiology: An International Code of Practice. IAEA TRS. No 457, IAEA, Vienna.

[12]   Kramer, K.., Khoury, H.J. and Vieira, J.W. (2008) CALDose X—A Software Tool for the Assessment of Organ and Tissue Absorbed Doses, Effective Dose and Cancer Risks in diagnostic Radiology. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 53, 6437-6459.

[13]   Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency (2008) ARPANSA RPS 14.1 Safety Guide for Radiation Protection in Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie.

[14]   IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency (2004) International Basic Safety Standard for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources. Safety Series No 115. IAEA, Vienna, Austria.

[15]   Compagnone, G., Pagan, L. and Bergamini, C. (2005) Local Diagnostic Reference Levels in Standard X-Ray Examinations. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 133, 54-63.

[16]   Johnston, D.A. and Brannan, P.C. (2000) Reference Dose Levels for Patients Undergoing Common Diagnostic X-Ray Examinations in Irish Hospitals. BJR, 73, 396-402.

[17]   International Atomic Energy Agency (1996) International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionising Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources. IAEA Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna.