• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.9-14
• /
• 2023

Background: The detectors of both computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) have a wide dynamic range that could tolerate high values of exposure factors without an adverse effect on image quality. Therefore, this study aims to assess patient radiation dose and proposes institutional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for two teaching hospitals in Ghana. Materials and Methods: CR and DR systems were utilized in this study from two teaching hospitals. The CR system was manufactured by Philips Medical Systems DMC GmbH, while the DR system was manufactured by General Electric. The entrance skin doses (ESDs) were calculated using the standard equation and the tube output measurements. Free-in-air kerma (µGy) was measured using a calibrated radiation dosimeter. The proposed institutional DRLs were estimated using 75^th percentiles values of the estimated ESDs for nine radiographic projections. Results and Discussion: The calculated DRLs were 0.4, 1.6, 3.4, 0.5, 0.4, 1.1, 1.0, 1.2, and 1.7 mGy for chest posteroanterior (PA), lumbar spine anteroposterior (AP), lumbar spine lateral (LAT), cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, skull PA, pelvis AP, and abdomen AP, respectively in CR system. In the DR system, the values were 0.3, 1.6, 3.1, 0.4, 0.3, 0.7, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.3 for chest PA, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, skull PA, pelvis AP, and abdomen AP, respectively. Conclusion: Institutional DRLs in nine radiographic projections have been proposed for two teaching hospitals in Ghana for the first time. The proposed DRLs will serve as baseline data for establishing local DRLs in the hospitals and will be a valuable tool in optimizing patient doses.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.16 no.7
• /
• pp.897-904
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in dose and image quality when applying the diagnostic reference level (DRL) test conditions for head radiography in a digital radiation environment and the test conditions currently applied in clinical practice. I would like to review the conditions of radiographic examination. In this study, the head model phantom was targeted, and the investigation conditions were divided into clinical conditions (Clinic), DRL value (DRL₇₅), and DRL average value (DRL_mean). For dose, Enterance surface dose (ESD) was measured, and for image quality, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were measured and analyzed for comparison. The average values of skull anterior posterior(AP) ESD according to the changes in test conditions were Clinic 1214.03±4.21 µGy, DRL₇₅ 3017.83±8.14 µGy, DRL_mean 2283.50±7.09 µGy, and skull lateral (Lat). The average value of ESD was statistically significant with Clinic 762.79±3.54 µGy, DRL₇₅ 2168.57±10.83 µGy, and DRL_mean 1654.43±6.48 µGy (p<0.01). The average values of SNR and CNR measured in the orbital, maxillary sinus, frontal sinus, and sella turcica were statistically significant (p<0.01). As a result of this study, compared to DRL, the conditions used in clinical practice showed lower dose levels of about 58% for AP and about 70% for Lat., and there was no qualitative difference in terms of image quality. Through this study, it is necessary to consider a new diagnostic reference level suitable for the digital radiation environment, and it is considered that the dose should be reduced accordingly.