• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.107-117
• /
• 2007

In order to evaluate the radio-protective advantage of an enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) over a physical wedge (PW), we measured peripheral doses scattered from both types of wedges using a 2D array of ion-chambers. A 2D array of ion-chambers was used for this purpose. In order to confirm the accuracy of the device we first compared measured profiles of open fields with the profiles calculated by our commissioned treatment planning system. Then, we measured peripheral doses for the wedge angles of $15^{\circ},\;30^{\circ},\;45^{\circ},\;and\;60^{\circ}$ at source to surface distances (SSD) of 80 cm and 90 cm. The measured points were located at 0.5 cm depth from 1 cm to 5 cm outside of the field edge. In addition, the measurements were repeated by using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD). The peripheral doses of EDW were (1.4% to 11.9%) lower than those of PW (2.5% to 12.4%). At 15 MV energy, the average peripheral doses of both wedges were 2.9% higher than those at 6MV energy. At a small SSD (80 cm vs. 90 cm), peripheral dose differences were more recognizable. The average peripheral doses to the heel direction were 0.9% lower than those to the toe direction. The results from the TLD measurements confirmed these findings with similar tendency. Dynamic wedges can reduce unnecessary scattered doses to normal tissues outside of the field edge in many clinical situations. Such an advantage is more profound in the treatment of steeper wedge angles, and shorter SSD.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.549-556
• /
• 2017

This study compared the spatial scattered dose distribution according to whether the recently developed radiation shielding is used or not in order to understand the spatial scattered dose distribution of C-arm. The horizontal side distribution increased by $30^{\circ}$ in the interval of the radius 50 cm on the height of 95 cm based on the head of the patient, and it was measured by increasing $30^{\circ}$ with the interval of 50 cm in the vertical side of each horizontal side. In the same method, the radiation shielding was installed and measured. The result of measurement shows that the horizontal side of 50 cm distance was $0^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$, was $1.77{\pm}0.12$, $1.90{\pm}0.13$, $2.12{\pm}0.14$, and $2.69{\pm}0.15mSv/h$ in the $270^{\circ}$ direction, and was $1.59{\pm}0.12$, $0.99{\pm}0.09$, $1.47{\pm}0.11$, and $1.37{\pm}0.11mSv/h$ after the use of the radiation shielding. In addition, the vertical distribution in horizontal direction $90^{\circ}$ with 50 cm distance was $30^{\circ}$, $60^{\circ}$, $120^{\circ}$, was $3.85{\pm}0.18$, $9.15{\pm}0.28$, $10.82{\pm}0.31$, and $5.40{\pm}0.22mSv/h$ in $150^{\circ}$, and was $2.03{\pm}0.13$, $4.32{\pm}0.19$, $2.76{\pm}0.16$, and $1.92{\pm}0.13mSv/h\;mR/h$ after the use of the radiation shielding. Both direction showed decrease according to the use of the radiation shielding. Therefore, radiation related workers who work in operating rooms should recognize the spatial scattered dose distribution exactly and need to try to prevent the risk of radiation exposure with proper protective measures.