Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimates of Patient Radiation Doses in Digital Radiography Using DICOM Information at a Large Teaching Hospital in Oman

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we sought to estimate the patient radiation doses in the digital radiography X-ray examinations conducted in a large hospital. The patient exposure factors and kerma-area product (PKA) were retrospectively recorded via the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) header for 547 patients. The entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) was estimated from the measurements of the X-ray tube output and recorded exposure factors, as well as from the console that displayed PKA as an alternative method. Effective doses were estimated from ESAK and PKA values using the appropriate conversion coefficient. In the chest PA, chest LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, abdomen AP, pelvis AP, lumbar spine AP, and lumbar spine LAT, the median ESAK (mGy) was found to be 0.13, 0.27, 0.35, 0.52, 0.70, 1.06, 2.33, and 4.18 mGy, respectively. Median PKA values were 0.10, 0.26, 0.14, 0.17, 0.77, 0.68, 0.81, and 1.11 Gy cm2, respectively. The estimated effective dose from ESAK and PKA values yielded comparable results. The comparison revealed that the ESAK and PKA values fell far below the reported in the literature. The results showed that the information of the DICOM deader is valuable for dosimetry and optimization.

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

References

  1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. 2008 UNSCEAR report to the general assembly with scientific annex. 2010

  2. Martin CJ: The importance of radiation quality for optimization in radiology. Biomed Imaging Intervention J 3(2), 2007

  3. Elshiekh E, Suliman II, Habbani F: A comparative study of adult patient doses in film screen and computed radiography in some Sudanese hospitals. Radiat Prot Dosim 165(1–4):402–405, 2015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission (EC): Diagnostic Reference Levels in Thirty-six European Countries Part 2/2. Radiation protection No. 180. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  5. Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, Ortiz-Lopez P, Mattsson S, Padovani R, Rogers A: ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. Ann ICRP 46(1):1–144, 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. ICRU: Patient dosimetry for X-rays used in medical imaging. International Commission on Radiation Measurements and Units (ICRU). ICRU Report No. 74. Bethesda: ICRU, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  7. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: An International Code of Practice IAEA TRS. No 457. Vienna: IAEA, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Radiological Protection Board: National protocol for patient dose measurements in diagnostic radiology (NRPB). Report of the Working Party of the Institute of Physical Science in Medicine. Chilton: NRPB, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nitrosi A, Corazza A, Bertolini M, Sghedoni R, Pattacini P, Iori M: Patient Dose Management Solution Directly Integrated in the RIS: “Gray Detector” Software. J Digit Imaging 27(6):786–793, 2014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim J, Seo D, Choi I, Nam S, Yoon Y, Kim H, Her J, Han S, Kwon S, Park H, Yang D: Development of Diagnostic Reference Levels Using a Real-Time Radiation Dose Monitoring System at a Cardiovascular Center in Korea. J Digit Imaging 28(6):684–694, 2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. International Commission on Radiological Protection: Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP publication 93. Ann ICRP 34:1–74, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Lamki L: Radiation exposure from medical imaging: a wake-up call for Oman! Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 11(1):1, 2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC2010): Medical Electrical Equipment–Part 2-43: Particular Requirements for the Basic Safety and Essential Performance of X-ray Equipment for Interventional Procedures, IEC 60601–2-43 ed2.0. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  14. Parry RA, Sharon AG, Benjamin RA: Typical patient dose in diagnostic radiology: the AAPM/RSNA physics tutorials for residents. Radiographic 19:1289–1302, 1999

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Petoussi-Heness N, Zankl M, Drexler G, Panzer W, Regulla D: Calculation of backscatter factors of diagnostic radiology using Monte Carlo methods. Phys Med Biol 43:2237–2250, 1998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hart D, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC: Doses to Patients from Radiographic and Fluoroscopic X-ray Imaging Procedures in the UK-2010 Review. HPA-CRCE-034

  17. Rasuli B, Ghorbani M, Juybari RT: Radiation dose measurement for patients undergoing common spine medical X-ray examinations and proposed local diagnostic reference levels. Radiat Meas 87:29–34, 2016

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Osibote OA, de Azevedo ACP: Estimation of adult patient doses for common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Phys Med 24:21–28, 2008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rana BS, Kumar S, Sandhu IS, Singh NP: Dosimetry Of Adult And Pediatric Patients For Common Digital Radiography Examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim 179(4):349–357, 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ibiri NN, Olowookere CJ: Evaluation of dose-area product of common radiographic examinations towards establishing a preliminary diagnostic reference levels (PDRLs) in Southwestern Nigeria. J Appl Clin Med Phys 17(6):392–404

  21. Nickoloff EL, Lu ZF, Dutta AK, So JC: Radiation dose descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and other strange creatures. Radiographics 28(5):1439–1450, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37 ICRP. 2007.

  23. Vilar-Palop J, Vilar J, Hernández-Aguado I, González-Álvarez I, Lumbreras B: Updated effective doses in radiology. J Radiol Prot 36(4):975, 2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brennan PC, Nash M: Increasing FFD: an effective dose-reducing tool for lateral lumbar spine investigations. Radiography 4(4):251–259, 1998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Herrmann A, Bonel H, Stabler A, Kulinna C, Glaser C, Holzknecht N, Geiger B, Schatzl M, Reiser F: Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients. Eur Radiol 12(2):385–390, 2002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sjöholm B, Geijer H, Persliden J: Impact of digital imaging on radiation doses to the patient during X-ray examination of the urinary tract. Acta Radiol 46(6):657–661, 2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Suliman II, Mohammedzein TS: Estimation of adult patient doses for common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Wad-Madani, Sudan: derivation of local diagnostic reference levels. Aust Phys Eng Sci Med 37(2):425–429, 2014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. British Institute of Radiology (BIR). Assurance of Quality in the Diagnostic Imaging Department Quality Assurance Working Group of the Radiation Protection Committee of the BIR. UK, 2001.

  29. Dave JK, Jones AK, Fisher R, Hulme K, Rill L, Zamora D, Woodward A, Brady S, MacDougall RD, Goldman L, Lang S: Current state of practice regarding digital radiography exposure indicators and deviation indices: report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 232. Med Phys 45(11):e1146–e1160, 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is carried out at the Sultan Qaboos University Hospital in Oman following the approval of the medical ethics committee (MREC No. 875).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sudan Atomic Energy Commission, Radiation Safety Institute, P.O. Box 3001, Khartoum, Sudan

    Ibrahim I. Suliman

  2. Formerly at Medical Physics Section, College of Medicine & Health Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 35, Al-Khoudh, 123, Muscat, Oman

    Ibrahim I. Suliman

  3. Physics Department, College of Science, Committee on Radiation and Environmental Pollution Protection, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, 11642, Saudi Arabia

    Ibrahim I. Suliman

Authors
  1. Ibrahim I. Suliman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibrahim I. Suliman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suliman, I.I. Estimates of Patient Radiation Doses in Digital Radiography Using DICOM Information at a Large Teaching Hospital in Oman. J Digit Imaging 33, 64–70 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00199-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00199-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation