Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2014.8.4.203

The Effect of Source to Image-Receptor Distance(SID) on Radiation Dose for Digital Chest Radiography  

Kwon, Soonmu (Department of Radiologic Technology, Daegu Health College)
Park, Changhee (Department of Radiologic Technology, Daegu Health College)
Park, Jeongkyu (Department of Radiologic Technology, Daegu Health College)
Son, Woonheung (Department of Clinical Laboratory Science Shinhan University)
Jung, Jaeeun (Department of Radiologic Technology, Daegu Health College)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology / v.8, no.4, 2014 , pp. 203-210 More about this Journal
Abstract
Chest radiography has been typically performed at SID of 180 cm. Image quality and patient dose were investigated between 180 cm and 340 cm by 20 cm intervals at 120 kVp and 320 mAs with the AEC. VGA was performed for qualitative assessment and SNR was analysed for quantitative assessment on the image of the chest phantom. Patients dose was measured by ESAK and PCXMC was used for effective dose. As a result, when using the standard of SID of 180 cm which is typically used in the clinical practice, in the case of ESAK, 240 cm, 280 cm, and 320 cm were 8.7%, 11.47%, and 13.56% respectively therefore significant reduction was confirmed. In the case of effective dose, 2.89%, 4.67%, and 6.41% in the body and 5.08%, 6.09%, and 9.6% in lung were reduced. In the case of SNR, 9.04%, 8.24%, and 11.46% were respectively decreased especially, by 8.03% between SID of 260 cm and 300 cm, but SNR was 5.24 up to 340 cm. There were no significant differences in VGA thus the image is valuable in diagnosis. It is predicted that increasing SID up to 300 cm in digital chest radiography can reduce patient dose without decreasing image quality.
Keywords
Digital chest radiography; Source image receptor distance; Entrance surface air kerma; Effective dose;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Eugene D. Frank, Bruce W. Long, Barbara J, Smith, "MERRIL'S ATLAS of Radiographic Positioning & Procedures," pp.496-498, 2012.
2 Maria Joyce, Mark McEntee, Patrick C Brennan, Desiree O'Leary, "Reducing dose for digital cranial radiography; The increased source to the image-receptor distance approach," J. Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 44(4), pp.180-187, 2013.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Bushberg, Jerrold T., and John M. Boone, "The essential physics of medical imaging," Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp.91-92, 2011.
4 Herrmann, C., Sund, P., Tingberg, A., Keddache, S., Mansson, L. G., Almen, A., & Mattsson, S., "Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs," In Medical Imaging, pp.251-258, 2000.
5 ICRP; "Managing patient dose in digital radiology," ICRP Publication 93. Ann ICRP. 34, No. 1, 2004.
6 R. Y. L. Chu et al., "AAPM Report No. 31: Standardized Methods for Measuring Diagnostic X-Ray Exposures American Institute of Physics," New York, 1991.
7 International Commission on Radiation Measurements and Units, "Patient dosimetry for X-rays used in Medical Imaging," ICRU Report No. 74, ICRU, 2006.
8 Suliman, Ibrahim I., and Sahar O. Elawed. "Radiation dose measurements for optimisation of chest X-ray examinations of children in general radiography hospitals," Radiation protection dosimetry 156.3, pp.310-314, 2013.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Cristy, M., "Mathematical Phantoms Representing Children of Various Ages for Use in Estimates of Internal Dose," NUREG/CR-1159, ORNL/NUREG/TM-367, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1980.
10 Hart, D., Jones, D. G, Wall, B. F, "Normalised Organ Doses for Medical X-ray Examinations Calculated using Monte Carlo Techniques," NRPB-SR262, NRPB, Chilton, 1994.
11 De Crop, An, et al, "Correlation of contrast-detail analysis and clinical image quality assessment in chest radiography with a human cadaver study," Radiology 262.1, pp.298-304, 2012.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 P Sund, C Herrmann, A Tingberg, et al., "Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs," Proc. SPIE 3981, pp.251-257, 2000.
13 Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends(NEXT); http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/NationwideEvaluationofX-rayTrendsNEXT/default.htm.
14 IAEA Safety Series No.115, "International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources," 1996.
15 "Textbook of Medical Dosimetry; Patient Exposures and Dosimetry for X-ray procedures," Japan Association of Radiological Technologist, 2006.
16 Doses to Patients from Radiographic and Fluoroscopic X-ray Imaging Procedures in the UK-2010 Review, HPA, 2012.
17 Sulyun Hwang. et al, "A Study on Radiation Dose for General Radiography Examination at First Medical Institution.,:The Korea Society of Radiology, Vol.5, N0.5, pp.245-253, 2011.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Hirose M, Ikeda M, Ito K, Ishigaki T, Sakuma S, "Considerations for standard chest radiography: the long film-focus distance technique," Nagoya J Med. Sci, 55(1-4),33-9, 1993.
19 Huda, W. Sandison, G. A., Plaser, R. F. and Savoie, D, "Radiation doses and detriment from chest x-ray examinations," Phys. Med. Bio. 34910, pp.1477-1492, 1989.
20 Schaefer-Prokop, Cornelia, et al, "Digital chest radiography; an update on modern technology, dose containment and control of image quality," European radiology, 18.9, pp.1818-1830, 2008.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Brennan, P. C., S. McDonnell, and D. O'Leary, "Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for x-ray examinations," Radiation protection dosimetry, 108.3, pp.263-268, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Vano, E., Oliete, S., Gonzalez, L., Guibelalde, E., Velasco, A. and Fernandez, J. M, "Image quality and dose reduction in lumbar spine examinations; results of 5 year quality control programme following the European quality criteria trial," Br. J. Radiol, 68, pp.1332-1335, 1995.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 CEC European Commission, "European Guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images," EUR. 16260, 1996.
24 KRTA, Normal scan of the patient dose recommendation amount of Radiology guidelines, Radiation Safety Management Series No. 30, 11-1470550-000299-01, 2012.
25 ICRP. "Protection of the patient in x-ray diagnosis.," Oxford: International Commission on Radiological Protection, Report No. ICRP, Publication 16, 1970.
26 Poletti, J. L. "Factors affecting patient dose in diagnostic radiology," Natl. Radiat. Lab. New Zealand 11, pp.49-52, 1994.
27 Wagner, Louis K., Patricia J. Eifel, and Richard A. Geise. "Potential biological effects following high x-ray dose interventional procedures," Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 5.1, pp.71-84, 1994.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Kebart RC, James CD. "Benefits of increasing focal film distance," Radiol Technol, 2(6), pp.434-442, 1991.
29 Brennan PC, Nash M. "Increasing FFD; an effective dose reducing tool for lateral lumbar spine investigations," Radiography 4, pp.251-259, 1998.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 "ICRP; 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 103," Annals of the ICRP Vol. 137, No. 2-4, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 2007.
31 Hart, D., Jones, D. G. and Wall, B. F, "Coefficients for estimating effective dose from pediatric x-ray examinations," NRPB, 1996.
32 Robinson J, McLean D, "Extended focal-film distance: an analysis of the factors in dose reduction for the AP knee radiograph," Radiog 7, pp.165-170, 2001.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Brennan PC. and Nash M., "Increasing FFD; an effective dose reducing tool for lateral lumbar spine investigations," Radiography 4, pp.251-259. 1998.   DOI   ScienceOn