Análise dos índices de exposição de exames de radiografia digital

I. Rosa, Janine Hastenteufel Dias, Rochelle Lykawka, Maurício Anés, Luany Nobre Furlan, A. Bacelar
{"title":"Análise dos índices de exposição de exames de radiografia digital","authors":"I. Rosa, Janine Hastenteufel Dias, Rochelle Lykawka, Maurício Anés, Luany Nobre Furlan, A. Bacelar","doi":"10.15392/2319-0612.2024.2435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Radiography is a crucial diagnostic imaging modality in clinical practice, with persistent challenges in digital radiography regarding the level of exposure. The International Electrotechnical Commission standardized the Exposure Index (EI) and Deviation Index (DI) in digital systems, aiming to improve the assessment of radiation exposure. Each exam has an associated Target Exposure Index (EIT), representing the balance between radiation dose and image quality. This study analyzed the EI and DI of digital radiographs at a university hospital, using a database of 71,760 radiographs. The analysis considered the action limits as suggested by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The group of exposures carried out in radiography rooms presented a DI of 1.2, while that of exposures carried out on mobile equipment, 2.4. In contrast, the first group presented standard deviation values between 1.5 and 3.9, while the second, between 1.8 and 2.6. These results suggest that exposures performed using Automatic Exposure Control (CAE) differ less from EIT, however, radiographic techniques were more standardized among exams with mobile equipment, performed with manual selection of exposure parameters, as these exams presented a smaller DI dispersion range. The creation of an automated tool in Google Looker Studio facilitated interactive data analysis, presenting information by anatomical region and view, with the potential to continuously monitor radiological practices. For certain incidences, the average DI values obtained differed substantially from the ideal value, which requires optimization actions, investigation into the definition of adequate EIT and calibration of the CAE. The study provided a detailed overview of local radiographic practices, highlighting priorities for optimization and standardization actions.","PeriodicalId":9203,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15392/2319-0612.2024.2435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Radiography is a crucial diagnostic imaging modality in clinical practice, with persistent challenges in digital radiography regarding the level of exposure. The International Electrotechnical Commission standardized the Exposure Index (EI) and Deviation Index (DI) in digital systems, aiming to improve the assessment of radiation exposure. Each exam has an associated Target Exposure Index (EIT), representing the balance between radiation dose and image quality. This study analyzed the EI and DI of digital radiographs at a university hospital, using a database of 71,760 radiographs. The analysis considered the action limits as suggested by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The group of exposures carried out in radiography rooms presented a DI of 1.2, while that of exposures carried out on mobile equipment, 2.4. In contrast, the first group presented standard deviation values between 1.5 and 3.9, while the second, between 1.8 and 2.6. These results suggest that exposures performed using Automatic Exposure Control (CAE) differ less from EIT, however, radiographic techniques were more standardized among exams with mobile equipment, performed with manual selection of exposure parameters, as these exams presented a smaller DI dispersion range. The creation of an automated tool in Google Looker Studio facilitated interactive data analysis, presenting information by anatomical region and view, with the potential to continuously monitor radiological practices. For certain incidences, the average DI values obtained differed substantially from the ideal value, which requires optimization actions, investigation into the definition of adequate EIT and calibration of the CAE. The study provided a detailed overview of local radiographic practices, highlighting priorities for optimization and standardization actions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分析数字射线摄影检查的曝光率
放射摄影是临床实践中一种重要的影像诊断方式,但数字放射摄影在辐射水平方面一直面临挑战。国际电工委员会对数字系统中的暴露指数(EI)和偏差指数(DI)进行了标准化,旨在改进辐射暴露的评估。每项检查都有一个相关的目标暴露指数(EIT),代表辐射剂量和图像质量之间的平衡。这项研究使用一个包含 71,760 张射线照片的数据库,分析了一家大学医院数字射线照片的 EI 和 DI。分析考虑了美国医学物理学家协会(AAPM)建议的行动限值。在放射室进行的照射组的 DI 值为 1.2,而在移动设备上进行的照射组的 DI 值为 2.4。相比之下,第一组的标准偏差值介于 1.5 和 3.9 之间,第二组介于 1.8 和 2.6 之间。这些结果表明,使用自动曝光控制(CAE)进行的曝光与 EIT 的差异较小,但在使用移动设备、手动选择曝光参数的检查中,放射技术的标准化程度更高,因为这些检查的 DI 分散范围较小。在谷歌Looker Studio中创建的自动化工具促进了交互式数据分析,按解剖区域和视图显示信息,具有持续监控放射操作的潜力。在某些病例中,获得的平均 DI 值与理想值相差很大,这就需要采取优化措施、调查适当的 EIT 定义和校准 CAE。这项研究提供了当地放射学实践的详细概览,突出了优化和标准化行动的优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Análisis integral de visitas guiadas al reactor de investigación nuclear RA-6: perspectivas educativas, de investigación y sociales Development of a sample exchange system for irradiations in the BH-3 channel of the IEA-R1 reactor at IPEN Análise dos índices de exposição de exames de radiografia digital Multiphysics Computational Modeling of Nuclear Reactors Small Size Through the Coupling of Serpent Codes and Fluent Abordagens de blindagens baseadas em polímeros como uma solução prática na redução dos riscos radiológicos em operações de campo
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1