Computed Tomography Dose Measurement in Three Hospitals of Pokhara

S. Gautam¹ , S.K. Saurav² , K. Adhikari³ , S. Singh⁴ , H.K. Banstola⁵

Section:Research Paper, Product Type: Journal-Paper
Vol.9 , Issue.4 , pp.42-46, Aug-2021

Online published on Aug 31, 2021

Copyright © S. Gautam, S.K. Saurav, K. Adhikari, S. Singh, H.K. Banstola . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 

View this paper at   Google Scholar | DPI Digital Library

XML View     PDF Download

How to Cite this Paper

Abstract :
Within a second the Computed Tomography (CT) can produce a details image of any part of body and provide valuable diagnostic information for treatment planning. CT Dose Index (CTDI (vol)) and the Dose Length Product (DLP) measured in Mille Grey (mGy) and mGy-cm, respectively are used to measure radiation exposure to the patient. In this study, the effective dose for different CT scanner have been calculated, in some of the hospitals in Pokhara, for head, chest, and abdomen scan during the month of July 2019. Three CT scanners (2, 16, and 128 slice) were chosen, each having different operating protocol and number of detector. 128 slice CT scanner can be noticed as high radiation risk for patient among three CT type. In case of head, the calculated effective dose for each three scanner result 1-2 mSv, same as the reference dose value. As scan length of target area varies, the corresponding value of dose also gets varied. This work surveys the absorbed radiation dose on the basis of scan length in sample scan cases.

Key-Words / Index Term :
CT Scanner, Effective Dose, Radiation

References :
[1] A. S. F. M. Ali, “Multi-slice computerized tomography in assessment of maxillo-facial trauma,” CU Theses, 2012.
[2] C. Richmond, “Sir godfrey Hounsfield,” BMJ, Vol. 329, 2004.
[3] W. Huda, F. A. Mettler, “Volume CT dose index and dose-length product displayed during CT: what good are they?,” Radiology, Vol. 258, No. 1, pp. 236-242, 2011.
[4] P. C. Shrimpton, M. C. Hillier, M. A. Lewis, M. Dunn, “National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003,” The British journal of radiology, Vol. 79, No. 948, pp. 968-980, 2006.
[5] C. H. McCollough, B. A. Schueler, “Calculation of effective dose,” Medical physics, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 828-837, 2000.
[6] P. D. Deak, Y. Smal, W. A. Kalender, “Multisection CT protocols: sex-and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product,” Radiology, Vol. 257, No. 1, pp. 158-166, 2010.
[7] A. Khursheed, M. C. Hillier, P. C. Shrimpton, B. F. Wall, “Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations,” The British journal of radiology, Vol. 75, No. 898, pp. 819-830, 2002.
[8] V. Tsapaki, J. E. Aldrich, R. Sharma, M. A. Staniszewska, A. Krisanachinda, M. Rehani, A. Hufton, C. Triantopoulou, P. N. Maniatis, J. Papailiou, M. Prokop, “Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT—IAEA-coordinated research project,” Radiology, Vol. 240, No. 3, pp. 828-834, 2006.
[9] R. Smith-Bindman, J. Lipson, R. Marcus, K. Kim, M. Mahesh, R. Gould, A. G. Berrington, D. L. Miglioretti, “Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer,” Archives of internal medicine, Vol. 169, No. 22, pp. 2078-2086, 2009.
[10] C. Cousins, D. L. Miller, G. Bernardi, M. M. Rehani, P. Schofield, E. Vañó, A.J. Einstein, B. Geiger, P. Heintz, R.J.I.P. Padovani, K. H. Sim, “International commission on radiological protection,” ICRP publication, pp. 1-125, 2011.
[11] K. A. Jessen, P. C. Shrimpton, J. Geleijns, W. Panzer, G. Tosi, ‘‘Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography,” Applied Radiation and isotopes, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 165-172, 1999.
[12] J. A. Christner, J. M. Kofler, C. H. McCollough, “Estimating effective dose for CT using dose–length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103 or dual-energy scanning,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 194, No. 4, pp. 881-889, 2010.
[13] L. Romans, “Computed Tomography for Technologists: A comprehensive text,” Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2018.
[14] American Association of Physicists in Medicine, “The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT,” AAPM report, Vol. 96, pp. 1-34, 2008.
[15] J. C. Heggie, N. A. Liddell, K. P. Maher, “Applied imaging technology,” St. Vincent`s Hospital, 2001.
[16] S. M. Ghavami, A. Mesbahi, I. Pesianian, “Patient doses from X-ray computed tomography examinations by a single-array detector unit: Axial versus spiral mode,” International Journal of radiation research, pp. 89-94, 2012.
[17] G. Breiki, Y. Abbas, H. M. Diab, M. Gomaa, “Measurements of computed tomography dose index for axial and spiral CT scanners,” 2007.