Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of Effective Dose During Abdominal Three-Dimensional Imaging for Three Flat-Panel-Detector Angiography Systems

  • Laboratory Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effective dose during abdominal three-dimensional (3D) imaging on phantoms and estimate the dose-area product (DAP) for effective dose conversion factors for three types of angiographic units. Three-dimensional imaging was performed for three sizes (small, medium, large) of human-shaped phantoms using three types of angiographic units (Allura Xper FD20/10, INNOVA 4100, AXIOM Artis dTA). We calculated 25 organ doses and effective doses using Monte Carlo technique for the three phantoms with a program for a personal computer. As benchmark studies to back up the results by Monte Carlo technique, we measured the organ doses directly on the small phantom using radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters. The DAP value increased as the phantom size increased. The organ doses and the effective doses during the 3D imaging increased as the phantom size increased. The effective doses for the small phantom by Monte Carlo technique were 1.9, 2.2, and 2.1 mSv for the Allura Xper FD20/10, INNOVA 4100, and AXIOM Artis dTA, respectively, while those by direct measurement were 1.6, 2.0, and 2.6 mSv. The effective doses to DAP ratios by Monte Carlo technique were 0.37–0.45, 0.26–0.32, and 0.13–0.15 (mSv Gy−1 cm−2) for the Allura Xper FD20/10, INNOVA 4100, and AXIOM Artis dTA, respectively. In conclusion, the effective doses during 3D imaging and the dose-to-DAP ratios differ among angiographic units, and the effective dose can be estimated using a proper conversion factor for each angiographic unit.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hirota S, Nakao N, Yamamoto S et al (2006) Cone-beam CT with flat-panel-detector digital angiography system: early experience in abdominal interventional procedures. CardioVasc Interv Radiol 29:1034–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Siewerdsen JH, Moseley DJ, Burch S et al (2005) Volume CT with a flat-panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C-arm: pre-clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery. Med Phys 32:241–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Suzuki S, Furui S, Yamaguchi I et al (2009) Effective dose during abdominal three-dimensional imaging with a flat-panel detector angiography system. Radiology 250:545–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cornier MA, Tate CW, Grunwald GK et al (2002) Relationship between waist circumference, body mass index, and medical care costs. Obesity Res 10:1167–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Servomaa A (1997) PCXMC—a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations. Report STUK-A139. Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cristy M (1980) Mathematical phantoms representing children of various ages for use in estimates of internal dose. Annual progress report 5, ORNL/NUREG/TM-367. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jones DG, Wall BF (1985) Organ doses from medical X-ray examinations calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. National radiological protection board report NRPB-R186. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zankl M, Petoussi N, Drexler G (1992) Effective dose and effective dose equivalent–the impact of the new ICRP definition for external photon irradiation. Health Phys 62:395–399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1995) Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 4. Inhalation dose coefficients. ICRP Publ. 71. Ann ICRP 25(3–4). Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  10. Akpek S, Brunner T, Benndorf G et al (2005) Three-dimensional imaging and cone beam volume CT in C-arm angiography with flat panel detector. Diagn Interv Radiol 11:10–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ishikura R, Ando K, Nagami Y et al (2006) Evaluation of vascular supply with cone-beam computed tomography during intraarterial chemotherapy for a skull base tumor. Radiat Med 24:384–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsapaki V, Vano E, Muavrikou I et al (2008) Comparison of patient dose in two-dimensional carotid arteriography and three-dimensional rotational angiography. CardioVasc Interv Radiol 31:477–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li J, Udayasankar UK, Toth TL et al (2007) Automatic patient centering for MDCT: effect on radiation dose. Am J Roentgenol 188:547–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hart D, Jones DG, Wall BF (1994) Estimation of effective dose in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface dose and dose-area product measurements. National radiological protection board report NRPB-R262. HMSO, London, pp 30–31

    Google Scholar 

  15. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP, pp 159–171

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shigeru Suzuki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suzuki, S., Yamaguchi, I., Kidouchi, T. et al. Evaluation of Effective Dose During Abdominal Three-Dimensional Imaging for Three Flat-Panel-Detector Angiography Systems. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34, 376–382 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-010-9893-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-010-9893-z

Keywords

Navigation