Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of dose at an interventional reference point between the displayed estimated value and measured value

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, interventional radiology (IR) X-ray units are required for display of doses at an interventional reference point (IRP) for the operator (IR physician). The dose displayed at the IRP (the reference dose) of an X-ray unit has been reported to be helpful for characterizing patient exposure in real time. However, no detailed report has evaluated the accuracy of the reference doses displayed on X-ray equipment. Thus, in this study, we compared the displayed reference dose to the actual measured value in many IR X-ray systems. Although the displayed reference doses of many IR X-ray systems agreed with the measured actual values within approximately 15%, the doses of a few IR units were not close. Furthermore, some X-ray units made in Japan displayed reference doses quite different from the actual measured value, probably because the reference point of these units differs from the International Electrotechnical Commission standard. Thus, IR physicians should pay attention to the location of the IRP of the displayed reference dose in Japan. Furthermore, physicians should be aware of the accuracy of the displayed reference dose of the X-ray system that they use for IR. Thus, regular checks of the displayed reference dose of the X-ray system are important.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 85: avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Ann ICRP 2001 (30/2:Publication 85).

  2. Hirshfeld JW, Balter S, Brinker JA, et al. ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association American. College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:2259–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wong L, Rehm J. Images in clinical medicine: radiation injury from a fluoroscopic procedure. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:e23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chida K, Morishima Y, Katahira Y, Chiba H, Zuguchi M. Evaluation of additional lead shielding in protecting the physician from radiation during cardiac interventional procedures. Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2005;61:1632–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chida K, Kato M, Saito H, Ishibashi T, Takahashi S, Kohzuki M, et al. Optimizing patient radiation dose in intervention procedures. Acta Radiol. 2010;51:33–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chida K, Kato M, Kagaya Y, Zuguchi M, Saito H, Ishibashi T, et al. Radiation dose and radiation protection for patients and physicians during interventional procedure. J Radiat Res. 2010;51:97–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology. 2010;254:326–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kato M, Chida K, Sato T, Oosaka H, Tosa T, Kadowaki K. Evaluating the maximum patient radiation dose in cardiac interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011;143:69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chida K, Saito H, Zuguchi M, Shirotori K, Kumagai S, Nakayama H, et al. Does digital acquisition reduce patients’ skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures? An experimental study. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1111–4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chida K, Saito H, Otani H, Kohzuki M, Takahashi S, Yamada S, et al. Relationship between fluoroscopic time, dose-area product, body weight, and maximum radiation skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:774–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim KP, Miller DL. Minimising radiation exposure to physicians performing fluoroscopically guided cardiac catheterisation procedures: a review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;133:227–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chida K, Inaba Y, Masuyama H, Yanagawa I, Mori I, Saito H, et al. Evaluating the performance of a MOSFET dosimeter at diagnostic X-ray energies for interventional radiology. Radiol Phys Technol. 2009;2:58–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, Dixon RL, Ferrari VA, Gomes AS, et al. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation. 2009;119:1056–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chida K, Inaba Y, Saito H, Ishibashi T, Takahashi S, Kohzuki M, et al. Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1680–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsapaki V, Ahmed NA, AlSuwaidi JS, Beganovic A, Benider A, BenOmrane L, et al. Radiation exposure to patients during interventional procedures in 20 countries: initial IAEA project results. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:559–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chida K, Ohno T, Kakizaki S, Takegawa M, Yuuki H, Nakada M, et al. Radiation dose to the pediatric cardiac catheterization and intervention patient. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1175–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Inaba Y, Chida K, Shirotori K, Shimura H, Yanagawa I, Zuguchi M, et al. Comparison of the radiation dose in a cardiac IVR X-ray system. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011;143:74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Medical electrical equipment. Part 2–43. Particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for interventional procedures. IEC 60601-2-43. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2000.

  19. Chida K, Kagaya Y, Saito H, Takai Y, Takahashi S, Yamada S, et al. Total entrance skin dose: an effective indicator of the maximum radiation dose to a patient’s skin during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:W224–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). Medical electrical equipment, Particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for interventional procedures, Z 4751-2-43, 2005.

  21. Chida K, Takahashi T, Ito D, Shimura H, Takeda K, Zuguchi M. Clarifying and visualizing sources of staff-received scattered radiation in interventional procedures. Am J Roentgenol. 2011 (in press).

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Shoki Takahashi of the Tohoku University Hospital, Yuji Kaga of the Sendai Kousei Hospital, Hiroo Chiba of the Tohoku Kouseinenkin Hospital, Masami Sato of the Sendai Open Hospital, Kunihiko Sato of the South Miyagi Medical Center, Yoshiharu Tada of the Tohoku Rosai Hospital, Takuya Yamashita of the Sendai Tokushukai Hospital, Hisaya Shirotori of the Oosaki City Hospital, and Shigeo Asano of the Ishinomaki City Hospital, for their invaluable assistance. Thanks are also given to Hanako Masuyama, Mika Takegawa, and Hiroko Yuuki, from the College of Medical Sciences, Tohoku University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological Technology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Tohoku University, 2-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Japan

    Koichi Chida, Masaaki Taura, Ayako Ebata, Ken Takeda & Masayuki Zuguchi

  2. Department of Radiology, Tohoku University Hospital, 1-1 Seiryo, Aoba, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan

    Yohei Inaba & Isao Yanagawa

  3. Department of Radiology, Tohoku Employees’ Pension Welfare Hospital, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan

    Yoshiaki Morishima

Authors
  1. Koichi Chida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yohei Inaba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoshiaki Morishima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masaaki Taura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ayako Ebata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Isao Yanagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ken Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masayuki Zuguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koichi Chida.

About this article

Cite this article

Chida, K., Inaba, Y., Morishima, Y. et al. Comparison of dose at an interventional reference point between the displayed estimated value and measured value. Radiol Phys Technol 4, 189–193 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-011-0121-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-011-0121-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation