Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Chest X-rays of newborns in a medical facility: variation between the entrance skin dose measurements using the indirect and direct methods for clinical dose audit

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to determine the mean and 75th percentile entrance skin dose (ESDcal) from anteroposterior (AP) chest X-rays using machine parameters (indirect method). Also, a comparison was made between the ESDcal and already determined thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) measurements (ESDTLD) from a previous study from the same patients’ data. In addition, the results were compared to similar articles, where the direct and indirect methods were used in estimating ESD to newborns.

Materials and methods

The study determined the digital radiography (DR) X-ray machine output using a calibrated XR Multidetector (silicon photodiode). X-ray machine milliampere-seconds (mAs), peak kilovoltage (kVp), focus to detector distance (FDD) and focus to skin distance (FSD) were used from a previous study. The mean kVp and mAs were 56.63 (52–60) and 5.7 (5–6.3) and the patient thickness was 9.5 (8–11.5) cm.

Results

The mean ESDs of the newborn between 0 and 28 days were 0.67 ± 0.09 mGy, and the 75th percentile was 0.75 mGy. The effective dose (E) for the 40 patients was 0.19 mSv and the estimated prenatal cancer risk ranged from (5–24.7) 10−6 Sv−1. The variation between the indirect and the direct methods for assessing ESD was 39.6 (33.7–45.1)%.

Conclusion

The 75th percentile ESD was the highest compared to the American College of Radiology–American Association of Physicists in Medicine–Society for Pediatric Radiology (ACR–AAPM–SPR), European Commission (EC) and United Kingdom (UK) reports. Comparison of both methods for assessing ESD was within 40% as compared to other studies. Based on the above results, the indirect method can be implemented for clinical dose audit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ESD:

Entrance skin dose

E:

Effective dose

FDD:

Focus to detector distance

FSD:

Focus to skin distance

ICRP:

International Commission on Radiological Protection

NNU:

Neonatal unit

DRL:

Diagnostic reference level

IAEA:

International Atomic Energy Agency

ACR–AAPM–SPR:

American College of Radiology–American Association of Physicists in Medicine–Society for Pediatric Radiology

EC:

European Commission

UK:

United Kingdom

TO:

Tube output

TLD:

Thermoluminescent dosimeter

AAPM:

American Association of Physicists in Medicine

HPA:

United Kingdom Health Protection Agency

References

  1. Dance DR, Christofides S, Maidment ADA, McLean ID, Ng KH, editors. Diagnostic radiology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pradhan AS, Lee JI, Kim JL. On the scenario of passive dosimeters in personnel monitoring: relevance to diagnostic radiology and fluoroscopy-based interventional cardiology. J Med Phys. 2016;41(2):81–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Omojola AD, Akpochafor MO, Adeneye SO, Aweda MA. Calibration of MTS-N (LiF: Mg, Ti) chips using cesium-137 source at low doses for personnel dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Environ. 2020;43:108–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sharma R, Sharma SD, Pawar S, Chaubey A, Kantharia S, Babu DA. Radiation dose to patients from X-ray radiographic examinations using computed radiography imaging system. J Med Phys. 2015;40(1):29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rasuli B, Juybari RT, Forouzi M, Ghorbani M. Patient dose measurement in common medical X-ray examinations and the propose the first local dose reference levels to diagnostic radiology in Iran. Pol J Med Eng. 2017;23:67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aliasgharzadeh A, Mihandoost E, Masoumbeigi M, Salimian M, Mohseni M. Measurement of entrance skin dose and calculation of effective dose for common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Kashan, Iran. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;7(5):202–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cook JV, Kyriou JC, Pettet A, Fitzgerald MC, Shah K, Pablot SM. Key factors in the optimization of paediatric X-ray practice. Br J Radiol. 2001;74(887):1032–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stollfuss J, Schneider K, Krüger-Stollfuss I. A comparative study of collimation in bedside chest radiography for preterm infants in two teaching hospitals. Eur J Radiol Open. 2015;6(2):118–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hlabangana LT, Andronikou S. Short-term impact of pictorial posters and a crash course on radiographic errors for improving the quality of paediatric chest radiographs in an unsupervised unit—a pilot study for quality-assurance outreach. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(2):158–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Obed RI, Ekpo ME, Omojola AD, Abdulkadir MK. Medical physics professional development and education in Nigeria. Med Phys Int. 2016;4:96–8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Akpochafor MO, Omojola AD, Soyebi KO, Adeneye SO, Aweda MA, Ajayi HB. Assessment of peak kilovoltage accuracy in ten selected X-ray centers in Lagos metropolis, South-Western Nigeria: a quality control test to determine energy output accuracy of an X-ray generator. J Health Res Rev. 2016;3:60–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Idowu BM, Okedere TA. Diagnostic radiology in Nigeria: a country report. J Glob Radiol. 2020;6(1):1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology for paediatrics patients. IAEA human health series no. 24. Vienna: IAEA Publications; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Järvinen H, Vassileva J, Samei E, Wallace A, Vano E, Rehani M. Patient dose monitoring and the use of diagnostic reference levels for the optimization of protection in medical imaging: current status and challenges worldwide. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017;4(3): 031214.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Paulo G, Damilakis J, Tsapaki V, Schegerer AA, Repussard J, Jaschke W, et al. Diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications in computed tomography: a literature review. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roch P, Célier D, Dessaud C, Etard C, Rehani MM. Long-term experience and analysis of data on diagnostic reference levels: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Eur Radiol. 2019;30(2):1127–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: an international code of practice. Technical reports series (TRS) no. 457. Vienna: IAEA Publications; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  18. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging, vol. 135. ICRP Publication; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Armpilia C, Fife I, Croasdale P. Radiation dose quantities and risk in neonates in a special care baby unit. Br J Radiol. 2002;75:590–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. Reference levels and achievable doses in medical and dental imaging: recommendations for the United States. NCRP report no. 172. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Omojola AD, Akpochafor MO, Adeneye SO, Akala IO, Agboje AA. Estimation of dose and cancer risk to newborn from chest X-ray in South-South Nigeria: a call for protocol optimization. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2021;52:69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsapaki V, Tsalafoutas IA, Chinofoti I, Karageorgi A, Carinou E, Kamenopoulou V. Radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations: a comparison between two methods. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:107–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging, vol. 103. ICRP Publication; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  24. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Quality control in diagnostic radiology. AAPM report no. 74. American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Recommended standard for the routine performance testing of diagnostic X-ray imaging systems. York: IPEM; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Musa Y, Hashim S, Karim MKA. Direct and indirect entrance surface dose measurement in X-ray diagnostics using nanoDot OSL dosimeters. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1248:19012014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. ACR–AAPM–SPR. Practice parameter for diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses in medical x-ray imaging. In: Reference levels and achievable dose (diagnostic). ACR–AAPM–SPR; 2018. (Revised 2018. Resolution 40).

    Google Scholar 

  28. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in paediatrics, Rep. EUR 16261. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. Doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK- 2000 review. Chilton; 2002. (NRPB-W14).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wall BF, Haylock R, Jensen JTM, Hillier MC, Hart D, Shirmpton PC. Radiation risks from medical X-ray examination as a function of age and sex of the patient. Didcot: Chilton; 2011. (HPA-CRCE-028).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mesfin Z, Elias K, Melkamu B. Assessment of pediatrics radiation dose from routine X-ray examination at Radiology Department of Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. J Health Sci. 2017;27(5):481.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Brindhaban A, Eze CU. Diagnostic X-ray examinations of newborn babies and 1-year-old infants. Med Princ Pract. 2006;15:260–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kiljunen T, Tietäväinen A, Parviainen T, Viitala A, Kortesniemi M. Organ doses and effective doses in pediatric radiography: patient-dose survey in Finland. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:114–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mohamadain, KEM, Azevedo ACP, Da Rosa LAR, Mota HC, Goncalves OD, Guebel, MRN (2001) Entrance skin dose measurements for paediatric chest x-rays examinations in Brazil. In: 2 Ibero-Latinamerican and Caribbean Congress of Medical Physics, Venezuela

  35. Toossi MTB, Malekzadeh M. Radiation dose to newborns in neonatal intensive care units, Iran. J Radiol. 2012;9(3):145–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Olgar T, Onal E, Bor D, Okumus N, Atalay Y, Turkyilmaz C, et al. Radiation exposure to premature infants in a neonatal intensive care unit in Turkey. Korean J Radiol. 2008;9(5):416–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Aliasgharzadeh A, Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Aminolroayaei F. Radiation cancer risk from doses to newborn infants hospitalized in neonatal intensive care units in children hospitals of Isfahan province. Int J Radiat Res. 2018;16:117–22.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jones NF, Palarm TW, Negus IS. Neonatal chest and abdominal radiation dosimetry: a comparison of two radiographic techniques. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:920–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bouaoun A, Ben-Omrane L, Hammou A. Radiation doses and risks to neonates undergoing radiographic examinations in intensive care units in Tunisia. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2015;3(4):342–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely want to thank the staffs of the Department of Radiology, Federal Medical Centre Asaba, who gave their time and support for this study.

Funding

No funding whatsoever.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medical Physics Unit, Federal Medical Centre Asaba, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria

    Akintayo Daniel Omojola & Azuka Anthonio Agboje

  2. Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy and Radiodiagnosis, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos State, Nigeria

    Michael Onoriode Akpochafor & Samuel Olaolu Adeneye

  3. Department of Radiology, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria

    Isiaka Olusola Akala

Authors
  1. Akintayo Daniel Omojola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Onoriode Akpochafor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Olaolu Adeneye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Isiaka Olusola Akala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Azuka Anthonio Agboje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ADO conceived the topic, designed the template for data collection, carried out the data analysis, and was involved in manuscript preparation and editing. MOA did an appraisal on the dose values calculated and reviewed the manuscript. SOA did a thorough search of the literatures used, he also edited the manuscript for possible errors and vetted the data analysis. IOA took part in the manuscript preparation and literature search. AAA administered the consent form and was involved in the data collection. All authors read and approved the finial manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akintayo Daniel Omojola.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No competing interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent for publication

Approval for publication was granted.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Omojola, A.D., Akpochafor, M.O., Adeneye, S.O. et al. Chest X-rays of newborns in a medical facility: variation between the entrance skin dose measurements using the indirect and direct methods for clinical dose audit. Jpn J Radiol 40, 219–225 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-021-01193-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-021-01193-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation