A comparison of effective dose and risk for different collimation options used in AP shoulder radiography. Issue 2 (May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Singh, T.; Muscroft, N.; Collier, N.; England, A.
• Is Part Of: Radiography. Volume 28:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 394
• Page End: 399
• Publication Date: 2022-05
• Subjects: Collimation -- TLD -- Dose measurement -- Radiation protection -- Effective dose -- Shoulder radiography; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Diagnostic Imaging -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Imagerie pour le diagnostic -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.11.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-8174

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Radiography forms the cornerstone of the evaluation of shoulder disorders. While the benefits of radiography exceed the risks, there continues to be a compelling case for reduction of radiation exposure from diagnostic radiography. The aim of this project was to evaluate the radiation dose and risk for a variety of collimation settings used during anteroposterior (AP) shoulder radiography. Methods: This was a phantom based study where an ATOM adult dosimetry phantom was loaded with 272 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Following loading, the phantom was setup for an AP shoulder X-ray projection with standard 25 × 30 cm rectangular collimation. The phantom was exposed three times and then the TLDs were removed and read. The experiment was repeated using a diamond shaped collimation and rectangular collimation with a minimum field of view to portray only relevant anatomy. Using the TLD dose measurements the effective doses and radiation risks were determined and compared. Results: As expected, organs neighbouring the shoulder experienced the highest absorbed doses (greater than 0.01 mGy); these organs included breast, lung and thyroid gland. The effective doses for standard rectangular, small rectangular and diamond collimation were 0.011, 0.008 and 0.016 mSv, respectively. When compared to standard collimation, a small field of view reduced effective dose by 27.3% and when moving to a diamond shape there was a 45.5% increase. The differences are likely driven by differences in the coverage of the radiosensitive lung and breast tissue. Conclusion: By utilising a variety of different collimation settings, effective dose can be reduced. Reducing the radiation dose is both financially beneficial and results in a lower stochastic risk for patients. Image quality must also be considered when choosing different collimation settings. It stands to reason that by reducing the field size, dose will be reduced, and our study has served to quantify the effects in a practical situation. Implications for practice: The utilisation of smaller/tight collimation is recommended as it offers the lowest dose when compared with other types of collimations. Although well-known this study serves to remind practitioners of the practical importance of collimation and is associated effect on effective dose and risk.