Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2012.6.4.281

The study of MDCT of Radiation dose in the department of Radiology of general hospitals in the local area  

Shin, Jung-Sub (Department of Radiologic Technology, Sunlin college)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology / v.6, no.4, 2012 , pp. 281-290 More about this Journal
Abstract
The difference of radiation dose of MDCT due to different protocols between hospitals was analyzed by CTDI, DLP, the number of Slice and the number of DLP/Slice in 30 cases of the head, the abdomen and the chest that have 10 cases each from MDCT examination of the department of diagnostic imaging of three general hospitals in Gyeongsangbuk-do. The difference of image quality, CTDI, DLP, radiation dose in the eye and radiation dose in thyroid was analyzed after both helical scan and normal scan for head CT were performed because a protocol of head CT is relatively simple and head CT is the most frequent case. Head CT was significantly higher in two-thirds of hospitals compared to A hospital that does not exceed a CTDI diagnostic reference level (IAEA 50mGy, Korea 60mGy) (p<0.001). DLP was higher in one-third of hospitals than a diagnostic reference level of IAEA 1,050mGy.cm and Korea 1,000mGy.cm and two-thirds exceeded the recommendation of Korea and those were significantly higher than A hospital that does not exceed a diagnostic reference level (p<0.001). Abdomen CT showed 119mGy that was higher than a diagnostic reference level of IAEA 25mGy and Korea 20mGy in one-third. DLP in all hospitals was higher that Korea recommendation of 700mGy.cm. Among target hospitals, C hospital showed high radiation dose in all tests because MPR and 3D were of great importance due to low pitch and high Tube Curren. To analyze the difference of radiation dose by scan methods, normal scan and helical scan for head CT of the same patient were performed. In the result, CTDI and DLP of helical CT were higher 63.4% and 93.7% than normal scan (p<0.05, p<0.01). However, normal scan of radiation dose in thyroid was higher 87.26% (p<0.01). Beam of helical CT looked like a bell in the deep part and the marginal part so thyroid was exposed with low radiation dose deviated from central beam. In addition, helical scan used Gantry angle perpendicularly and normal scan used it parallel to the orbitomeatal line. Therefore, radiation dose in thyroid decreased in helical scan. However, a protocol in this study showed higher radiation dose than diagnostic reference level of KFDA. To obey the recommendation of KFDA, low Tube Curren and high pitch were demanded. In this study, the difference of image quality between normal scan and helical scan was not significant. Therefore, a standardized protocol of normal scan was generally used and protective gear for thyroid was needed except a special case. We studied a part of CT cases in the local area. Therefore, the result could not represent the entire cases. However, we confirmed that patient's radiation dose in some cases exceeded the recommendation and the deviation between hospitals was observed. To improve this issue, doctors of diagnostic imaging or technologists of radiology should perform CT by the optimized protocol to decrease a level of CT radiation and also reveal radiation dose for the right to know of patients. However, they had little understanding of the situation. Therefore, the effort of relevant agencies with education program for CT radiation dose, release of radiation dose from CT examination and addition of radiation dose control and open CT contents into evaluation for hospital services and certification, and also the effort of health professionals with the best protocol to realize optimized CT examination.
Keywords
MDCT of Radiation dose; Diagnostic reference level; The optimization of protection; Radiation dose;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Food and Drug Administration, Safety investigation of CT brain perfusion scans, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm185898.htm.
2 Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, International action plan for the radiation protection of patients, from:http://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/ArchivedNews/ReportSteering Panel.htm.
3 헬스조선, CT방사선량 환자에게 알려야, CT 방사선 논란 '여전', http://health.chosun.com/news/dailynews_view.jsp?mn_idx=40075
4 Payne JT, CT radiation dose and image quality. Radiol Clin North Am., Vol. 43, No. 7, pp.953-962, 2005.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Pierce DA, Preston DL, Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors, Radiat Res. Vol. 154, pp.178-186, 2000.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Rubins JB, The current approach to the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: lessons from PIOPED II, Postgrad Med, Vol. 120, pp.1-7, 2008.
7 Stein PD, Woodard PK, Weg JG, Wakefield TW, Tapson VF, Sostman HD, Sos TA, Quinn DA, Leeper KV, Hull RD, Hales CA, Gottschalk A, GoodmanLR, Fowler SE, Buckley JD, PIOPED II Investigators. Diagnostic pathways in acute pulmonary embolism: recommendations of the PIOPED II Investigators, Radiology, Vol. 242, No. 27, pp.15-21, 2007.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 박용구, 정승은, CT검사의 방사선피폭과 저감화 방법, 대한의사학회지, Vol. 54, No. 12, pp1262-1268, 2011.
9 강영한, 64-slice single source CT와 128-slice dual source CT를 이용한 관상동맥 조영 검사 시 환자선량 비교, 한국방사선학회, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp129-136, 2012.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
10 권대철, 이종석, 유병규, 흉부 및 복부에서 AEC 적용에 따른 MDCT의 선량 감소효과, 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp224-231, 2009..   과학기술학회마을
11 보건복지가족부, 식품의약품안전평가원, 대한영상의학회, 대한방사선사협회, CT 엑스선 검사에서의 환자선량 권고량 가이드라인, 방사선안전관리시리즈, No. 19, pp.1-51, 2009.
12 이활, 의료방사선의 현재와 각국의 피폭저감화 활동사항, 대한의사협회지, Vol. 54, No. 12, pp.1248-1252, 2011.
13 임청환, 조정근, 이만구, 전산화단층촬영 검사의 방사선 선량에 관한 연구, 방사선기술과학, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.81-389, 2007.
14 정아영, 소아 CT엑스선검사에서의 환자선량 저감방안, 식품의약품안전평가원, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2011.
15 한동균, 고신관, 양한준, 김문찬, MDCT에서 화질과 방사선량에 관한 연구, 방사선기술과학, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.129-138, 2007.
16 NCRP report, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: NCRP report no. 160. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2006.
17 Valentin J, International Commission on Radiological Protection, The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Amsterdam Elsevier, 2007.
18 김영옥, 64 slice MDCT 장비 제조사별 automatic exposure conrtral적용 시 radiation dose와 image quality에 관한 연구, 고려대학교 대학원 석사학위논문, 2010.
19 남진현, 64slice MDCT에서의 선량측정 및 선량관리 프로그램에 관한 고찰, 고려대학교 의용과학대학원 석사학위논문, 2010.
20 보건복지가족부, 식품의약품안전평가원, 대한영상의학회, 대한방사선사협회, CT 엑스선 검사에서의 환자선량 권고량 가이드라인, 방사선안전관리시리즈, Vol. 19, pp.1-51, 2009.
21 안정희, Multi-DetectorComputed Tomography(MDCT)에 의한 신체부위별 노출 방사선량 측정, 경북대학교 보건대학원 석사학위논문, 2011.
22 임청환, 전산화단층촬영의 방사선피폭에 의한 위험도 추정, 원광대학교 의료경영대학원 박사학위논문, 2004.
23 Bor D, Sancak T, Olgar T, Elcim Y, Adanali A, Sanlidilek U, Akyar S, Comparison of effective doses obtained from dose-area product and air kerma measurements in interventional radiology, Br. J. Radiol, Vol. 77, pp.15-322, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Curtis JR, Computed tomography shielding methods: a lite-rature review, Radiol Technol, Vol. 81, pp.428-436, 2010.
25 Dougeni E, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G, A review of patient dose and optimisation methods in adult and paediatric CT scanning, Eur. J. Radiol, Vol. 16, 2011.
26 Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Dia-gnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology, Vol. 231, pp.393-398, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Jung SE, Korean Institute for Accreditation of Medical Image. National survey of radiation dose of computed tomography in Korea, Seoul: Korea Food and Drug Administration, 2008.
28 California S. B., radiation dosage, California S.B. 1237, 2010.