Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 2334–2340 | Cite as

Quantitative assessment of selective in-plane shielding of tissues in computed tomography through evaluation of absorbed dose and image quality

  • J. GeleijnsEmail author
  • M. Salvadó Artells
  • W. J. H. Veldkamp
  • M. López Tortosa
  • A. Calzado Cantera
Computer Tomography

Abstract

This study aimed at assessment of efficacy of selective in-plane shielding in adults by quantitative evaluation of the achieved dose reduction and image quality. Commercially available accessories for in-plane shielding of the eye lens, thyroid and breast, and an anthropomorphic phantom were used for the evaluation of absorbed dose and image quality. Organ dose and total energy imparted were assessed by means of a Monte Carlo technique taking into account tube voltage, tube current, and scanner type. Image quality was quantified as noise in soft tissue. Application of the lens shield reduced dose to the lens by 27% and to the brain by 1%. The thyroid shield reduced thyroid dose by 26%; the breast shield reduced dose to the breasts by 30% and to the lungs by 15%. Total energy imparted (unshielded/shielded) was 88/86 mJ for computed tomography (CT) brain, 64/60 mJ for CT cervical spine, and 289/260 mJ for CT chest scanning. An increase in image noise could be observed in the ranges were bismuth shielding was applied. The observed reduction of organ dose and total energy imparted could be achieved more efficiently by a reduction of tube current. The application of in-plane selective shielding is therefore discouraged.

Keywords

X-ray computed tomography Radiation protection Radiation effects 

References

  1. 1.
    Brnic Z, Vekic B, Hebrang A, Anic P (2003) Efficacy of breast shielding during CT of the head. Eur Radiol 13(11):2436–2440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaconsfield T, Nicholson R, Thornton A, Al Kutoubi A (1998) Would thyroid and breast shielding be beneficial in CT of the head? Eur Radiol 8(4):664–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fricke BL, Donnelly LF, Frush DP, Yoshizumi T, Varchena V, Poe SA, Lucaya J (2003) In-plane bismuth breast shields for pediatric CT: effects on radiation dose and image quality using experimental and clinical data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(2):407–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hein E, Rogalla P, Klingebiel R, Hamm B (2002) Low-dose CT of the paranasal sinuses with eye lens protection: effect on image quality and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 12(7):1693–1696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hopper KD, King SH, Lobell ME, TenHave TR, Weaver JS (1997) The breast: in-plane X-ray protection during diagnostic thoracic CT—shielding with bismuth radioprotective garments. Radiology 205(3):853–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopper KD, Neuman JD, King SH, Kunselman AR (2001) Radioprotection to the eye during CT scanning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22(6):1194–1198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hopper KD (2002) Orbital, thyroid and breast superficial radiation shielding for patients undergoing diagnostic CT. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 23(5):423–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McLaughlin DJ, Mooney RB (2004) Dose reduction to radiosensitive tissues in CT. Do commercially available shields meet the users’ needs? Clin Radiol 59(5):446–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perisinakis K, Raissaki M, Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N (2005) Reduction of eye lens radiation dose by orbital bismuth shielding in pediatric patients undergoing CT of the head: a Monte Carlo study. Med Phys 32(4):1024–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mukundan S, Frush DP, Yoshizumi T, Toncheva G, Nguyen G, Marcus J (2004) The use of a bismuth shield to decrease radiation dose to the eye in children: an anthropomorphic phantom study. RSNA2004. Report No.: SSC15–05Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shrimpton PC, Wall BF, Fisher ES (1981) The tissue-equivalence of the Alderson Rando anthropomorphic phantom for X-rays of diagnostic qualities. Phys Med Biol 26(1):133–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ford RL, Nelson WR (1978) The EGS code system. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Report No.: Report SLAC–210Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nelson WR, Hirayama H, Rogers DWO (1985) The EGS code system. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Report No.: Report SLAC–265Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salvado M, Lopez M, Morant JJ, Calzado A (2005) Monte Carlo calculation of radiation dose in CT examinations using phantom and patient tomographic models. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114(1–3):364–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Straten M, Venema HW, Hartman J, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA (2004) Reproducibility of multi-slice spiral computed tomography scans: an experimental study. Med Phys 31(10):2785–2786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ICRP publication 60. 1990 (1991) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Stratakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N (2005) The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations. Med Phys 32(6):1621–1629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, Lell M, Pirkl M, Kalender W, Bautz WA (2000) Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 10(2):391–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, Ghysen D, Van Dijck X, Mussen E, Venstermans C, Termote JL (2005) Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 237(1):213–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Geleijns
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Salvadó Artells
    • 2
  • W. J. H. Veldkamp
    • 1
  • M. López Tortosa
    • 2
  • A. Calzado Cantera
    • 3
  1. 1.Radiology DepartmentLeiden University Medical CenterZA LeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Departament de Ciències Mèdiques BàsiquesUniversitat Rovira i Virgili, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la SalutReusSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de RadiologíaUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations