Comparative analysis of effective doses to patients undergoing examination on general-purpose X-ray machines, calculated by various methods

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Purpose. Comparative evaluation of effective doses to patients calculated using various methods for the most common X-ray examinations performed on general-purpose digital X-ray machines.

Materials and methods. Data collection on parameters of examinations was performed for seven digital X-ray machines located in several Moscow medical facilities. Parameters for the most common X-ray examinations were collected for 120 standard patients from October to December 2019.

Results. For all X-ray machines, significant reliable discrepancies were revealed between effective doses from the protocols of accredited laboratories (calculated based on radiation output) and effective doses determined by the authors based on the collected values of the dose-area product. The differences, on average, did not exceed ± 100%. However, the discrepancies for the thoracic spine and chest X-ray on some devices were even more significant.

Limitations. Lack of a unified, standardised methodology for collecting parameters of radiological studies.

Conclusion. The parameters of standard X-ray studies, collected by accredited laboratories and presented in the current methodological guidelines for monitoring patients’ effective doses, significantly differ from the studies’ parameters obtained from our data collection results. The existing methods for calculating effective doses require to be updated and revised. It makes sense to give up using transition coefficients and specialised software that calculates the effective dose, taking into account the geometry of patients’ exposure and physical and technical parameters of the study.

Contribution:

Druzhinina U.V. — the concept and design of the study, collection and processing of material and literature data, statistical analysis, writing a text;

Vodovatov A.V. — the collection and processing of the material, statistical analysis, editing;

Okhrimenko S.Е. — collection of literature data, editing.

All co-authors — approval of the final version of the article, responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the article.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: April 7, 2021 / Accepted: November 25, 2021 / Published: March 10, 2022

About the authors

Yuliya V. Druzhinina

Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Health Care Department; Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: yu.druzhinina@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3230-3722

Expert Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Health Care Department, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation.

e-mail: yu.druzhinina@npcmr.ru

Russian Federation

Aleksandr V. Vodovatov

Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene named after Professor P.V. Ramzaev; St-Peterburg State Pediatric Medical University Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5191-7535
Russian Federation

Sergei E. Okhrimenko

Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Health Care Department; Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation; A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8282-1798
Russian Federation

References

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation Protection and Safety in Medical Uses of Ionizing Radiation. Specific Safety Guide № SSG-46. Vienna: IAEA; 2018.
  2. International Atomic Energy Agency. Dosimetry in Diagnostic Radiology: An International Code of Practice. Technical Reports Series 457. Vienna: IAEA; 2007.
  3. ICRP Publication 105. Radiological Protection in Medicine. Elsevier; 2007.
  4. Hart D., Wall D.F., Hillier M.C., Shrimpton P.C. Frequency and Collective Dose for medical and dental X-ray examinations in the UK. HPA-CRCE-012; 2010.
  5. Hart D., Wall D.F., Hillier M.C., Shrimpton P.C. Doses to Patients from Radiographic and Fluoroscopic X-ray Imaging Procedures in the UK-2010. Review. HPA-CRCE-034; 2012.
  6. Onishchenko G.G., Popova A.Yu., Romanovich I.K., Vodovatov A.V., Bashketova N.S., Istorik O.A., et al. Modern principles of the radiation protection from sources of ionizing radiation in medicine. Part 1: radiation risks and development of the system of radiation protection. Radiatsionnaya gigiena. 2019; 12(1): 6–24. (in Russian)
  7. Onishchenko G.G., Popova A.Yu., Romanovich I.K., Vodovatov A.V., Bashketova N.S., Istorik O.A., et al. Modern principles of the radiation protection from sources of ionizing radiation in medicine. Part 2: radiation risks and development of the system of radiation protection. Radiatsionnaya gigiena. 2019; 12(2): 6–24. https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-2-6-24 (in Russian)
  8. Okhrimenko S.E., Voronin K.V., Ivanov S.I., Akopova N.A. Ensuring radiation safety in X-ray diagnostics using new technologies. Zdravookhranenie i meditsinskaya tekhnika. 2004; 4(8): 36–7. (in Russian)
  9. Okhrimenko S.E., Voronin K.V., Ivanov S.I. Effective doses of patients obtained on the basis of measurements of DRC-1 in a medical facility in Moscow. ANRI. 2003; (1): 38–9. (in Russian)
  10. Erenstein H.G., Browne D., Curtin S., Dwyer R.S., Higgins R.N., Hommel S.F., et al. The validity and reliability of the exposure index as a metric for estimating the radiation dose to the patient. Radiography (Lond). 2020; 26 (Suppl. 2): S94–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2020.03.012
  11. Vodovatov A.V. Practical implementation of the diagnostic reference levels concept for the common radiographic examinations. Radiatsionnaya gigiena. 2017; 10(1): 47–55. https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2017-10-1-47-55 (in Russian)
  12. Vodovatov A.V., Golikov V.Yu., Kal’nitskiy S.A., Shatskiy I.G., Chipiga L.A. Evaluation of levels of exposure of adult patients from common radiographic examinations in the Russian Federation in 2009–2014. Radiatsionnaya gigiena. 2017; 10(3): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2017-10-3-66-75 (in Russian)
  13. Korenkov I.P., Okhrimenko S.E., Samoylov A.S., Shestopalov N.V., Prokhorov N.I. A differentiated approach to hygienic indices in evaluating the activity of radiation facilities. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2019; 98(3): 256–60. https://doi.org/10.18821/0016-9900-2019-98-3-256-260 (in Russian)
  14. Okhrimenko S.E., Ilin L.A., Korenkov I.P., Morozov S.P., Biryukov A.P., Gombolevskiy V.A., et al. Optimization of radiation doses to patients in X-rae diagnostics. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2019; 98(12): 1331–7. https://doi.org/10.18821/0016-9900-2019-98-12-1331-1337 (in Russian)
  15. Taylor S., Van Muylem A., Howarth N., Gevenois P.A., Tack D. X-ray examination dose surveys: how accurate are my results? Eur. Radiol. 2019; 29(10): 5307–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06055-5
  16. Brindhaban A. Radiation dose to patients in coronary interventional procedures: a survey. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2019; 184(1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncy179
  17. Alukic E., Skrk D., Mekis N. Comparison of anteroposterior and posteroanterior projection in lumbar spine radiography. Radiol. Oncol. 2018; 52(4): 468–74. https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2018-0021
  18. Wachabauer D., Röthlin F., Moshammer H.M., Homolka P. Diagnostic Reference Levels for conventional radiography and fluoroscopy in Austria: Results and updated National Diagnostic Reference Levels derived from a nationwide survey. Eur. J. Radiol. 2019; 113: 135–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.02.015
  19. Alqahtani S.J.M., Welbourn R., Meakin J.R., Palfrey R.M., Rimes S.J., Thomson K., et al. Increased radiation dose and projected radiation-related lifetime cancer risk in patients with obesity due to projection radiography. J. Radiol. Prot. 2019; 39(1): 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/aaf1dd
  20. Druzhinina P., Eremina L., Vodovatov A., Shatsky I. Patient doses from typical radiography examinations in the Leningrad region. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference «Medical Physics 2019». Kaunas; 2019.
  21. Golikov V.Yu., Chipiga L.A., Vodovatov A.V., Sarycheva S.S. Additions and changes in the assessment of effective doses of external radiation to patients in medical research. Radiatsionnaya gigiena. 2019; 12(3): 120–32. (in Russian)
  22. Vodovatov A.V., Balonov M.I., Golikov V.Y., Shatsky I.G., Chipiga L.A., Bernhardsson C. Proposals for the establishment of national diagnostic reference levels for radiography for adult patients based on regional dose surveys in Russian Federation. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2017; 173(1–3): 223–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncw341
  23. Balonov M.I., Golikov V.Yu., Vodovatov A.V., Chipiga L.A., Zvonova I.A., Kal’nitskiy S.A., et al. Scientific bases of radiation protection in modern medicine. In: Balonov M.I., ed. Radiation Diagnostics [Luchevaya diagnostika]. St. Petersburg; 2019. (in Russian)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Druzhinina Y.V., Vodovatov A.V., Okhrimenko S.E.


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 37884 от 02.10.2009.