METHODS: We scrutinized the routine radiological exposure parameters during 58 clinical neuro-interventional procedures such as, exposure direction, magnification, frame rate, and distance between image receptor to patient's body and evaluate their effects on patient's dose using an anthropomorphic phantom. Radiation dose received by the occipital region, ears and eyes of the phantom were measured using MOSkin detectors.
RESULTS: DSA imaging technique is a major contributor to patient's dose (80.9%) even though they are used sparingly (5.3% of total frame number). The occipital region of the brain received high dose largely from the frontal tube constantly placed under couch (73.7% of the total KAP). When rotating the frontal tube away from under the couch, the radiation dose to the occipital reduced by 40%. The use of magnification modes could increase radiation dose by 94%. Changing the image receptor to the phantom surface distance from 10 to 40cm doubled the radiation dose received by the patient's skin at the occipital region.
CONCLUSION: Our findings provided important insights into the contribution of selected fluoroscopic exposure parameters and their impact on patient's dose during neuro-interventional radiology procedures. This study showed that the DSA imaging technique contributed to the highest patient's dose and judicial use of exposure parameters might assist interventional radiologists in effective skin and eye lens dose reduction for patients undergoing neuro-interventional procedures.
METHODS: Nine subjects were injected intravenously with the mean (18)F-FDG dose of 292.42 MBq prior to whole body PET/CT scanning. Kidneys and urinary bladder doses were estimated by using two approaches which are the total injected activity of (18)F-FDG and organs activity concentration of (18)F-FDG based on drawn ROI with the application of recommended dose coefficients for (18)F-FDG described in the ICRP 80 and ICRP 106.
RESULTS: The mean percentage difference between calculated dose and measured dose ranged from 98.95% to 99.29% for the kidneys based on ICRP 80 and 98.96% to 99.32% based on ICRP 106. Whilst, the mean percentage difference between calculated dose and measured dose was 97.08% and 97.27% for urinary bladder based on ICRP 80 while 96.99% and 97.28% based on ICRP 106. Whereas, the range of mean percentage difference between calculated and measured organ doses derived from ICRP 106 and ICRP 80 for kidney doses were from 17.00% to 40.00% and for urinary bladder dose was 18.46% to 18.75%.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference between calculated dose and measured dose. The use of organ activity estimation based on drawn ROI and the latest version of ICRP 106 dose coefficient should be explored deeper to obtain accurate radiation dose to patients.
Materials and Methods: A total of 8,030 intraoral images were retrospectively collected from 3 groups of undergraduate clinical dental students. The type of examination, stage of the procedure, and reasons for repetition were analysed and recorded. The repeat rate was calculated as the total number of repeated images divided by the total number of examinations. The weighted Cohen's kappa for inter- and intra-observer agreement was used after calibration and prior to image analysis.
Results: The overall repeat rate on intraoral periapical images was 34.4%. A total of 1,978 repeated periapical images were from endodontic assessment, which included working length estimation (WLE), trial gutta-percha (tGP), obturation, and removal of gutta-percha (rGP). In the endodontic imaging, the highest repeat rate was from WLE (51.9%) followed by tGP (48.5%), obturation (42.2%), and rGP (35.6%). In bitewing images, the repeat rate was 15.1% and poor angulation was identified as the most common cause of error. A substantial level of intra- and interobserver agreement was achieved.
Conclusion: The repeat rates in this study were relatively high, especially for certain clinical procedures, warranting training in optimization techniques and radiation protection. Repeat analysis should be performed from time to time to enhance quality assurance and hence deliver high-quality health services to patients.
Objectives: We explored the perceptions and practices related to the use of radioprotective garments among medical radiation workers in public hospitals, and sought to understand the reasons for non-adherence.
Design and setting: A qualitative approach was applied by conducting face-to-face in-depth interviews with 18 medical radiation workers from three university hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide.
Results: Five themes emerged with respect to perceptions on the use of radioprotective garments: (i) the dilemmas in practising radiation protection, (ii) indication of workers' credibility, (iii) physical appearance of radioprotective garments, (iv) practicality of radioprotective garment use, and (v) impact on workflow. Actual lack of radioprotective garment use was attributed to inadequate number of thyroid shield and other garments, radioprotective garments' unsightly appearance including being dirty and defective, impracticality of using radioprotective garments for some nuclear medicine procedures, disruption of workflow because of workers' limited movements, attitudes of workers, and organisational influences.
Conclusion: Medical radiation workers demonstrated a definitive practice of using radioprotective aprons, but often neglected to use thyroid shields and other garments. Availability and hygiene are reported as the core issues, while unclear guidelines on practical use of radioprotective garments appear to lead to confusion among medical radiation workers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study of its kind from a middle-income Asian setting.