A cross‐sectional study of the radiation dose and image quality of X‐ray equipment used in IVR. (8th July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Inaba, Yohei; Chida, Koichi; Kobayashi, Ryota; Zuguchi, Masayuki
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 17:Number 4(2016)
• Page Start: 391
• Page End: 401
• Publication Date: 2016-07-08
• Subjects: interventional radiology (IVR) -- image quality -- radiation dosimetry -- fluoroscopy -- cineradiography; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6231
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract : There are case reports of injuries caused by the radiation from interventional radiology (IVR) X‐ray systems. Therefore, the management of radiation doses in IVR is important. However, no detailed report has evaluated image quality for a large number of IVR X‐ray systems. As a result, it is unclear whether the image quality of the X‐ray equipment currently used in IVR procedures is optimal. We compared the entrance surface doses and image quality of multiple IVR X‐ray systems. This study was conducted in 2014 at 13 medical facilities using 18 IVR X‐ray systems. We evaluated image quality and simultaneously measured the radiation dose. Entrance surface doses for fluoroscopy (duration, 1 min) and cineradiography (duration, 10 s) are measured using a 20‐cm‐thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The image quality (such as spatial resolution and low‐contrast detectability) of both fluoroscopy and cineradiography was evaluated using a QC phantom. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface dose using the 20‐cm‐thick acrylic plate was 13.9 (range 2.1–28.2) mGy/min. For cineradiography, the average entrance surface dose was 24.6 (range 5.1–49.3) mGy/10 s. We found positive correlations between radiation doses and image quality scores, in general, especially for fluoroscopy. The differences in surface dose among the 18 IVR X‐ray systems were high (max/min, 9.7‐fold for cineradiography; 13.4‐fold for fluoroscopy). The differences in image quality scores (spatial resolution, low‐contrast detectability, and dynamic range) were also very large. In general, there tended to be a correlation between radiation dose and image quality. Periodical measurements of the radiation dose and image quality of the X‐ray equipment used for cineradiography and fluoroscopy in IVR are necessary. The need to minimize patient exposure requires that the dose be reduced to the minimum level that will generate an image with an acceptable degree of noise. PACS number(s): 87.57.C, 87.57.uq, 87.59.B, 87.59.bf, 87.59.C, 87.59.cf, 87.59.Dj