LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Al Qaroot, B; Hogg, P; Twiste, M; Howard, D
Publisher: IOS Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: health_and_wellbeing
BACKGROUND: Patients with vertebral column deformations are exposed to high risks associated with ionising radiation exposure. Risks are further increased due to the serial X-ray images that are needed to measure and asses their spinal deformation using Cobb or superimposition methods. Therefore, optimising such X-ray practice, via reducing dose whilst maintaining image quality, is a necessity.\ud \ud OBJECTIVES: With a specific focus on lateral thoraco-lumbar images for Cobb and superimposition measurements, this paper outlines a systematic procedure to the optimisation of X-ray practice.\ud \ud METHODS: Optimisation was conducted based on suitable image quality from minimal dose. Image quality was appraised using a visual-analogue-rating-scale, and Monte-Carlo modelling was used for dose estimation. The optimised X-ray practice was identified by imaging healthy normal-weight male adult living human volunteers.\ud \ud RESULTS: The optimised practice consisted of: anode towards the head, broad focus, no OID or grid, 80 kVp, 32 mAs and 130 cm SID.\ud \ud CONCLUSION: Images of suitable quality for laterally assessing spinal conditions using Cobb or superimposition measurements were produced from an effective dose of 0.05 mSv, which is 83% less than the average effective dose used in the UK for lateral thoracic/lumbar exposures. This optimisation procedure can be adopted and use for optimisation of other radiographic techniques.\ud \ud KEYWORDS: Cobb method; Optimisation of X-ray imaging; exposure dose reduction; image quality preservation; lateral thoraco-lumbar imaging; superimposition method
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] A. De Smet, S. Fritz, M. Asher, A method for minimizing the radiation exposure from scoliosis radiographs. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 63 (1981), 156-61.
    • [2] ICRP. Recommendations of the international Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 26, Oxford, Pergamon Press. ICRP 1977.
    • [14] J. Lescreve, R. Tiggelen, J. Lamoureux, Reducing the radiation dosage in patients with a scoliosis. International Orthopaedics 13(1989), 47-50.
    • [15] A. Kalmar, P. Jones, R. Christopher, Low-Dose Radiography of Scoliosis in Children: A Comparison of Methods. Spine 19(1994), 48-54
    • [16] C. Nash, E. Gregg, R. Brown, K. Pillai, Risks of exposure to X-rays in patients undergoing long-term treatment for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61(1979), 371-374
    • [17] J. Hsu, J. Michael, J. Fisk, editors. AAOS atlas of orthoses and assistive devices. 4 ed. Phalidelphia, USA: Mosby Inc., 2008.
    • [24] ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4). 2007.
    • [25] A. Whitley, Clark's positioning in radiography. London, UK: Hodder Arnold, 2005.
    • [26] P. Hiles, A. Mackenzie, A. Scally, Recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic X-ray imaging systems. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine 2005;Report No 91.
    • [27] E. Trout, J. Kelley, V. Larson, A comparison of an air gap and a grid in roentgenography of the chest. American Journal of Roentgenology 124(1975), 404-11.
    • [28] K. Fung and W. Gilboy, ÔÇťAnode heel effect" on patient dose in lumbar spine radiography. British Journal of Radiology 73(2000), 531-36.
    • [29] S. Gorham and P. Brennan, The impact of focal spot size on clinical images (Proceedings Paper). 2009.
    • [30] T. Curry, J. Dowdey, R. Murry, Christensen's physics of diagnostic radiology. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1990.
    • [31] P. Brennan and M. Nash, Increasing FFD: an effective dose-reducing tool for lateral lumbar spine investigations. Radiography 4(1998), 251-59.
    • [32] P. Brennan, S. McDonnell, D. O'Leary, Increasing film-focus distance (ffd) reduces radiation dose for x-ray examinations. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 108(2004), 263-68.
    • [33] S. Etemadinezhad, S. Rahimi, Patient exposure dose for chest and skull radiographies in Mazandaran hospitals. Rahimi, Xray Sci Technol. 18(2010), 87-91.
    • [34] B. Wall and D. Hart, Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations. Report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB. National Radiological Protection Board. British Journal of Radiology 70(1997), 437-39.
    • [35] J. Landis and G. Koch The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1977), 159-174.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article