AJR AJR-based Continuing Ed for Technologists
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chida, K.
Right arrow Articles by Zuguchi, M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chida, K.
Right arrow Articles by Zuguchi, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.09.2747
AJR 2009; 193:1680-1685
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Original Research

Radiation Dose of Interventional Radiology System Using a Flat-Panel Detector

Koichi Chida1, Yohei Inaba2, Haruo Saito1, Tadashi Ishibashi1, Shoki Takahashi2, Masahiro Kohzuki3 and Masayuki Zuguchi1

1 Department of Radiological Technology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Tohoku University, 2-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.
2 Department of Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
3 Department of Internal Medicine and Rehabilitation Science, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.

OBJECTIVE. Currently, cardiac interventional radiology equipment has tended toward using flat-panel detectors (FPDs) instead of image intensifiers (IIs) because FPDs offer better imaging performance. However, the radiation dose from an FPD in cardiac interventional radiology is not clear. The purpose of our study was to measure the radiation doses during cineangiography and fluoroscopy of many cardiac radiology systems that use FPDs or IIs, in clinical settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study examined 20 radiology systems in 15 cardiac catheterization laboratories (11 used FPD and nine used II). The entrance surface doses with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared for the 20 systems using acrylic plates (20-cm thick) and a skin dose monitor.

RESULTS. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface doses of the 20-cm-thick acrylic plates were identical for FPD (average ± SD, 16.63 ± 7.89 mGy/min; range, 5.7–26.4 mGy/min; maximum/minimum, 4.63) and II (17.81 ± 12.52 mGy/min; range, 6.5–42.2 mGy/min; maximum/minimum, 6.49) (p = 0.799). For digital cineangiography, the average entrance surface dose of the 20-cm-thick acrylic plate was slightly lower with FPD (29.68 ± 16.40 mGy/10 s; range, 8.9–58.5 mGy/10 s; maximum/minimum, 6.57) than with II (38.50 ± 33.71 mGy/10 s; range, 15.2–117.1 mGy/10 s; maximum/minimum, 7.70), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.487).

CONCLUSION. We found that the average entrance doses of cineangiography and fluoroscopy in FPD systems were not significantly different from those in II systems. Hence, FPDs did not inherently reduce the radiation dose, although FPDs possess good detective quantum efficiency. Therefore, to reduce the radiation dose of cardiac interventional radiology systems, even FPD systems, practical measures are necessary.

Keywords: flat-panel detector • fluoroscopy • interventional radiology • percutaneous coronary intervention • radiation dose


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.