Volume 3, Issue 4, July 2015, Page: 69-74
A Survey of Radiation Exposure Techniques Factors Used for Common Diagnostics X- Ray Examinations in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria
Essien Imeh Edet, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Uyo, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria
Inyang Samuel Okon, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Calabar, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria
Received: Feb. 24, 2015;       Accepted: Mar. 9, 2015;       Published: Jun. 8, 2015
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijmi.20150304.11      View  3467      Downloads  92
Abstract
The dose of radiation emitted by an X-ray source and delivered on a target depends on the source tube peak potential (kVp), the current time (mAs) and the source to film distance (FFD). There could be an harmful health effect on the patient if these exposure technique factors are not appropriately selected by the operators of these sources. Therefore the aim of this study is to survey the choice of these technique factors in X-ray departments in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, while undertaking some common diagnostic X-ray examinations. The common and mostly requested examinations considered were, Chest (PA), Skull (AP), Pelvis (AP) and Abdomen (AP). A total of 48 personnel, 952 adult volunteers in X-ray departments in nine Hospitals took part in the survey. The adults were age between 20-75 yrs and body weight 70 ± 13kg. Variations in the technique factors selected for the different examination were observed when compared with the values in CEC guidelines on quality criteria. The mean tube potential of 125 kVp selected for chest examination in this study is low compared to 180 kVp in the CEC. The mean mAs varies while some departments employed constant mAs for all examination and all patients not taking into account the body thickness of the patient. In skull and pelvis examination, some departments used lower kVps while some selected tube potentials within the CEC range of 70-85 kVp and 75-90 kVp respectively the mean FFD (162.0 cm) for chest in this study was within the CEC recommended value of 180.0 cm while low values of FFD were used in other examinations. Human and equipment factors were identified as possible reasons for the variations. The replacement of X-ray machines of more than 10 years, development of adequate and functional quality assurance programme for the facilities and retraining of the personnel are recommended as a panacea to minimize these variations.
Keywords
Technique Factors, Diagnostic X-ray, Health Effect, Chest, Abdomen, Skull, Pelvic
To cite this article
Essien Imeh Edet, Inyang Samuel Okon, A Survey of Radiation Exposure Techniques Factors Used for Common Diagnostics X- Ray Examinations in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, International Journal of Medical Imaging. Vol. 3, No. 4, 2015, pp. 69-74. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmi.20150304.11
Reference
[1]
AAPM (2002). Quality control in diagnostic radiology. American Association of Physicist in Medicine Report (74), Madison, Medical Physics Publishing
[2]
Aghahadi, B., Zhang, Z, Zareh, S. Sarker S. & Tayebi P. S (2006). Impact of quality control on radiation doses on patients undergoing abdomen x-ray examination in ten hospitals, Iran Journal of Radiation Research. 3 (4) 177-182.
[3]
Akinlade, B. I, F. Idowu, P. Okunde, and Akintude, A. (2012). Survey of dose area product received by patients undergoing common radiological examinations in four centres in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 13 (4), 15-1
[4]
Bouzarjomehri, J (2004). Patient dose in routine X-ray examinations in Yazd State, Iran Journal of radiation Research. 1(4), 199-204
[5]
CEC, (1996). European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in pediatrics’, Commission of European Communities
[6]
Huda, W and Gkanatsios, M.A (1997). Effective dose and energy imparted in diagnostic radiology, Medical Physics, 24(8), 1311-1316
[7]
IAEA (1996).International basic safety standards for protection against ionising radiation and for safety of radiation sources International Atomic Energy Agency, safety series no 115, Vienna, Austria
[8]
IAEA (2004). Optimization of radiological protection of patients undergoing radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography, a final report of coordinated research projects in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, IAEA-TECDOC-1423, Vienna
[9]
IAEA (2007). Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology, International Code of Practice, IAEA technical report series 457, Vienna.
[10]
Johnson D.A and Brennan P.C (2000). Reference dose levels for patients undergoing common diagnostic X-ray examination in Irish hospitals. British Journal of Radiology, 73 396-402
[11]
Martin, C. J (2006). The importance of radiation quality for optimization in radiology, Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal, 3 (2) 1-14
[12]
Milatovic, A, Ciraj-Bjelac, O, Ivanovic, S. Jovanovic, S and Spasic- Jokic, V (2011). Patient dose measurements in diagnostic radiology procedures in Montenegro, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1-10
[13]
Miralbell, R. Doriat, P. A. and Nouet, P (2000). X-ray dose to skin in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary, Angioplast Catheter Cardiovascular Intervention
[14]
NNRA(2003). Nigerian basic ionizing radiation regulations, Federal Government Press, Lagos, Nigeria.
[15]
NNRA (2006). Nigeria radiation safety in diagnostic and interventional radiology regulations, Federal Government Press, Lagos, Nigeria
[16]
Nyathi, T, Nethwadzi, L. C. Mabhengu, T, Pule, M. L and Merwe, D. G (2009). Patient dose audit for patient undergoing six common radiography examinations: Potential dose reference levels, South African Radiography, 9-13,
[17]
Olowookere, C. J. Obed, R. I. Babalola, I. A and Bello, T. O (2011). Patient dosimetry during chest, abdomen, skull and neck radiography in South West Nigeria. Radiography, 245-249
[18]
Osibote, O. A. and Azevedo, A.C.P (2008). Estimation of adult patient doses for common diagnostic x-ray examinations in Rio de Janerio, Brazil; Physica Medica, 21-28
[19]
UNSCEAR (2008). United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2006 report on effects of ionizing radiation. United Nations, New York.
[20]
Vano, E (2003). Radiation exposure to cardiologist, how it could be reduced, Heart, 89, 123-4
[21]
Vano, E. Gonzalaz, L. Beneytez, F. and Morem, F (1998). Lens injuries induced by exposures in non- optimized interventional radiology laboratories, British Journal of Radiology 71, 728-3
Browse journals by subject