대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학 (Journal of radiological science and technology)

  • 제42권6호
  • /
  • Pages.429-434
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2288-3509(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-1168(eISSN)
대한방사선과학회 (Korean Society of Radiological Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

진단용 X선을 이용한 방사선검사에서 차폐체 모양과 부가필터 변화에 따른 난소의 선량 분석

A Dose Analysis on the Ovary According to the Type of Shielding Material and the Change of Additional Filter in Radiography Using Diagnostic X-ray

  • 최준호 (강원대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Choi, Joon-Ho (Department of Radiology, Kangwon National University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2019.10.22
  • 심사 : 2019.12.22
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The gonads are directly affected by radiation exposure during radiography of the pelvis, abdomen, and spine. Exposure of the gonads to radiation can cause genetic mutations and can result in the occurrence of malignant tumors. In this study, we created three types of shielding material shapes for shielding of the ovaries, which are the gonads of female during radiography of the pelvis, and comparative evaluations using shadow shielding methods. The source surface distance(SSD) was 100 cm and the field size was 42 cm × 43 cm. The three types of shielding material shapes(type 1, 2 and 3) were assessed and the entrance surface dose in the ovaries were measured. The thickness of the shielding material was expanded from 0.3 mm to 2.4 mm and after five repetitions, radiation values were measured and mean values were calculated. The mean dose were 3.09 mGy for type 1, 3.54 mGy for type 2, and 3.19 mGy for type 3, indicating that the measurements were the lowest for type 1. When an additional filter of 0.2 Cu + 1 Al was used, the dose were 3.72 mGy for type 1, 5.43 mGy for type 2, and 4.05 mGy for type 3, indicating that the measurements were the lowest for type 1. The results show that, even if the shielding material is not thick, in other words, even with a thickness of 2.94 mGy for the SN 3(0.9 mm) of type 1, shielding can be achieved, with a patient dose lower than the diagnostic reference level(3.42 mGy). Additionally, among the three types of shielding material, the type 1 appeared to be the most appropriate shielding material. It is thought that the use of shielding material could reduce the risk factors for stochastic effects or critical effects of ionizing radiation during pelvic or lumbar radiography.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Holmberg O, Malone J, Rehani M, McLean D, Czarwinski R. Current issues and actions in radiation protection of patients. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(1):15-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.033
  2. Linet MS, Slovis TL, Miller DL, Kleinerman R, Lee C, Rajaraman P, et al. Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(2):75-100. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21132
  3. Doolan A, Patrick CB, Louise AR, Healy J. Gonad protection for the anterior-posterior projection of the pelvis in diagnostic radiography in Dublin hospitals. Radiography. 2004;10:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2003.12.002
  4. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection in medicine. ICRP publication 105. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(6).
  5. Sikand M, Stinchcombe S, Liversley P. Study on the use of gonadal protection shields during paediatric pelvis X-rays. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003;85:422-5. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588403322520852
  6. Wainwright AM. Shielding reproductive organs of orthopaedic patients during pelvic radiography. Ann R Coll Surg Eng. 2000;82;318-21.
  7. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Protection of the patient in diagnostic radiology. ICRP Publication 34. Ann ICRP. 1982;9:2-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6453(82)90144-0
  8. Frantzen MJ, Robben S, Postma AA, Zoetelief J, Wildberger JE, Kemerink GJ. Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: Disadvantages prevail over benefit. Insights Imaging. 2012;3:23-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0130-3
  9. Jackson G, Brennan PC. Radio-protective aprons during radiological examinations of the thorax: an optimum strategy. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2006;121:391-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncl076
  10. Bardo DM, Black M, Schenk K, Zaritzky MF. Location of the ovaries in girls from newborn to 18 years of age: Reconsidering ovarian shielding. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39:253-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-008-1094-4
  11. Korea Food and Drug Administration. Guideline on patient dose suggestion of general radiology. 2012;30:4-7.
  12. Abram E, Wilkinson D, Hodson C. Gonadal protection from X radiation for the female. Br J Radiol. 1958;31:335-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-31-366-335
  13. Sforza C, Vizzotto L, Ferrario VF, et al. Position of follicles in normal human ovary during definitive histogenesis. Early Hum Dev. 2003;74:27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3782(03)00081-1
  14. Bailey E, Anderson V. Syllabus on radiography radiation protection. Sacramento, California: California Department of Health services, 1995:72-6.
  15. Dowd SB, Tilson ER, Adams L. Practical radiation protection and applied radiobiology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1999.
  16. Raissaki MT. Pediatric radiation protection. European Radiology Supplements. 2004;14(S1):74-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10406-004-0011-7
  17. Fawcett SL, Gomez AC, Barter SJ, Ditchfield M, Set P. More harm than good? The anatomy of misguided shielding of the ovaries. Br J Radiol. 2012 Aug;85:1016.
  18. Odeh D, Ogbanje G, Jonah SA. X-Rays and scattering from filters used in diagnostic radiology. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2013;3(7):1-3.
  19. Sutton DG, JMartin C, Peet D, Williams JR. The characterization and transmission of scattered radiation resulting from X-ray beams filtered with zero to 0.99 mm copper. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32:117-20. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/32/2/117
  20. Vlachos I, Tsantilas X, Kalyvas N, Delis H, Kandarakis I, Panayiotakis G. Measuring scattering radiation in diagnostic x rays for radiation protection purpose. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2015;165(1-4):382-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv093
  21. Investigation of patient dose for diagnostic reference levels(DRL) in radiographic examination: National Survey in Korea. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, 2011:14-28.
  22. Hart D, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC. Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK-2010 Review. Health Protection Agency, 2012:57-61.
  23. International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. IAEA Safety Series No.115. 1996.
  24. Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends(NEXT): https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/radiation-safety/nationwide-evaluation-x-ray-trendsnext.
  25. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD): https://www.crcpd.org/page/Publications.