Studying of Selective Common Factors Affecting Radiographic Quality and Related Exposure Doses

Studying of Selective Common Factors Affecting Radiographic Quality and Related Exposure Doses

Loading document ...
Page
of
Loading page ...

Author(s)

Author(s): Abdulrahman Abdullah Alsayyari

Download Full PDF Read Complete Article

DOI: 10.18483/ijSci.2430 12 29 1-6 Volume 10 - Feb 2021

Abstract

In recent decades, there were spectacular developments in imaging technology that lead to substantial enhance in using the radiography in diagnosis of diseases. This study aims to investigate the effect of some potential factors that may influence the radiographic quality and the relative exposure dose. These factors are the exposure dose, the focal size, the filters thickness and grid. Data analysis was done using EXCELL and JAVA SE (JRE) V. 6 software to convert the analogue image into digital. The data showed that the object dose in mGy and dose area product (DAP) in mGy.cm2 were significantly increased (R2 = 0.9) by factors of 0.09 and 0.04 per mA respectively. The broad focus gave high dose and DAP as (0.28 mGy and 2.18 mGy.cm2) compared to fine focus as (0.14 mGy and 1.11 mGy.cm2) respectively. The system output (O/P) in mGy and DAP were significantly increased (R2 = 0.9) by factors of 1.02 and 1.05 respectively when the kVp increased up to 80. The presence of a filter significantly (R2 = 0.9) reduced O/P and DAP to the object by a factor of 5.5 mGy.cm2 and enhanced the image contrast but it reduced the image sharpness when a thick filter was used. The grid showed more homogeneous image contrast and eliminated the scatter, but it reduced the image sharpness. Finally, the data suggest that using image enhancing devices may increase the object dose and it should be done under "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) principles.

Keywords

Exposure-Factors, Image-Characteristics, Dose, Quality, Enhancement

References

  1. White S, Mallya S. Update on the biological effects of ionizing radiation, relative dose factors and radiation hygiene. Australian Dental Journal 2012;57(S1): 2 - 8.
  2. Martin C. J., Sutton D. G., Sharp F. P. Balancing patient dose and image quality. Appl. Radiat. Isot 1995; 50(1):1e19.
  3. Haney Alsleem, and Robert Davidson. Factors Affecting Contrast-Detail Performance in Computed Tomography: A Review. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 2013; 44: 62-70.
  4. Moore CS, Wood TJ, Beavis AW, Saunderson JR. Correlation of the clinical and physical image quality in chest radiography for average adults with a computed radiography imaging system. Br J. Radiol. 2013; 86: 20130077. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20130077.
  5. Moore CS, Liney GP, Beavis AW, Saunderson JR. A method to produce and validate a digitally reconstructed radiograph-based computer simulation for optimization of chest radiographs acquired with a computed radiography imaging system. Br J Radiol. 2011; 84: 890–902.
  6. Anthony Seibert J. X-Ray Imaging Physics for Nuclear Medicine Technologists. Part 1: Basic Principles of X-Ray Production. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 2004; 32:139-147.
  7. Khong P.L., Ringertz H., Donoghue V., Frush D., Rehani M., Appelgate K., Sanchez R., ICRP ICRP publication 121: Radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. Ann. ICRP. 2013;42(2):1–63.
  8. Dogan Bor, Ozlem Birgul, Umran Onal, and Turan Olgar. Investigation of grid performance using simple image quality tests. J. Med Phys, 2016. 41(1): 21–28. doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.177280.
  9. Bushberg, J.T., Seibert, J.A., Leidholdt, E.M. & Boone, J.M. The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd.edn, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2012.
  10. Genya Shimbo, MichihitoTagawa, Kotaro Matsumoto, Mizuki Tomihari and Kazuro Miyahara. Evaluation of grid performance for thoracicradiography in calves using a portable x-ray unit. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 2018; 66(1): 13-19.
  11. Bontrager, K. and Lampignano, J. (2014). Textbook of radiographic positioning and related anatomy. 8th ed. St. Louis, Mo.: Elsevier Mosby.
  12. Davies, A.G., Gislason-Lee, A.J., Cowen, A.R., Kengyelics, S.M., Lupton, M., Moore, J. & Sivananthan, M. (2014). "Does the use of additional X-ray beam filtration during cine acquisition reduce clinical image quality and effective dose in cardiac interventional imaging?", Radiation protection dosimetry, vol. 162, no. 4, pp. 597-604.
  13. Papp, J. Quality management in the imaging sciences, 4th. edn, Elsevier Mosby, London;St. Louis, Mo, 2011
  14. Al Khalifah, K.H., Brindhaban, A. & Saeed, R. A. Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography. Radiological Physics and Technology, 2014; 7: 109-113.
  15. DOI: 10.1007/s12194-013-0238-x
  16. Gay, S. and Woodcock, R. Radiology recall. 2nd. ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams &Wilkins (Grid - Chapter: 2, page: 26) 2008.
  17. Mohammed A. Ali Omer. Preferred Characterization of Orbital Infection (Cellulitis) with Exposure Dose & Relative Medication. International Journal of Research in Medical Science 2019; 7(2): 608-612.

Cite this Article:

International Journal of Sciences is Open Access Journal.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Author(s) retain the copyrights of this article, though, publication rights are with Alkhaer Publications.

Search Articles

Issue April 2021

Volume 10, April 2021


Table of Contents



World-wide Delivery is FREE

Share this Issue with Friends:


Submit your Paper