Dersleri yüzünden oldukça stresli bir ruh haline sikiş hikayeleri bürünüp özel matematik dersinden önce rahatlayabilmek için amatör pornolar kendisini yatak odasına kapatan genç adam telefonundan porno resimleri açtığı porno filmini keyifle seyir ederek yatağını mobil porno okşar ruh dinlendirici olduğunu iddia ettikleri özel sex resim bir masaj salonunda çalışan genç masör hem sağlık hem de huzur sikiş için gelip masaj yaptıracak olan kadını gördüğünde porn nutku tutulur tüm gün boyu seksi lezbiyenleri sikiş dikizleyerek onları en savunmasız anlarında fotoğraflayan azılı erkek lavaboya geçerek fotoğraflara bakıp koca yarağını keyifle okşamaya başlar

GET THE APP

OMICS Journal of Radiology - Assessment of Radiation Dose from Computed Tomography in Erbil City, Kurdistan Region: A Comparison with National Diagnostic Reference Levels
ISSN:2167-7964

OMICS Journal of Radiology
Open Access

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)
  • Research Article   
  • OMICS J Radiol, Vol 9(2)
  • DOI: 10.4172/2167-7964.1000313

Assessment of Radiation Dose from Computed Tomography in Erbil City, Kurdistan Region: A Comparison with National Diagnostic Reference Levels

Fatiheea Fatihalla Hassan*
Department of Basic Science - Biophysics Unit, College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University (HMU), KR, Iraq
*Corresponding Author: Fatiheea Fatihalla Hassan, Department of Basic Science - Biophysics Unit, College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University (HMU), KR, Iraq, Tel: +964-7503148390, Email: fatehiya64@yahoo.com

Received: 11-Feb-2020 / Accepted Date: 17-Feb-2020 / Published Date: 24-Feb-2020 DOI: 10.4172/2167-7964.1000313

Abstract

The diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are important operational agents for improvement of patient protection from radiation doses in radiological imaging. It advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as an advisory measure to optimization of patient protection by determining high patient dose levels which might not be necessary on the basis of image quality needs, so one of the main goals of this study was protection of patients from radiation doses during CT examination, evaluate radiation doses received by patients from CT examination that conducting in three medical imaging centres, Department of radiology in PAR Hospital, Hawler Hospital, and Cardiac Centre, in Erbil.

Compare the results with National Reference levels. The patients with total sample of 335 patients that undergoing various CT examinations including head, chest, and abdomen were collected. The data collected included age, gender, region examined, length, weight. Simulation software, CT Expo (Ver.2. 3. 1 Germany) were used for each examinations, radiation doses from CT that received by patients, and presented in terms of weighted Computed Tomography dose index (CTDI), dose length product (DLP). The results show that the mean values of CTDIw, DLP ranged from 6.7 ± 5.8 to 60 ± 1.7 mGy, 156 ± 88.5 to 884 ± 182.2, respectively. It is important to aware and optimizes the high radiation dose of CT equipment.

Keywords: CT-scan; Radiation dose; Weighted CT dose index; Dose length product; National Reference levels; Volume CT dose index; Body mass index 

Introduction

Since Rontgen has taken the first image of his wife's hand on 22nd December 1895, the X-ray radiology system has developed continuously [1]. The Computed Tomography (CT) in 1972 is the greatest developments in medical imaging, it is generally accepted that radiation doses from Computed Tomography is significantly very high compared to X-ray due to continuous output along z-axis during scanning [2].

Radiation protection of patients has been fundamental responsibilities in medical community since have been discovering CT scan, to ensure that radiation dose in line with the concept of The guiding principle of radiation safety is ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) [3]. Efforts directed towards, accurate reference levels for CT radiation dose [4], for each examination significantly, with multi detector CT (MDCT), which have been recognized as high radiation dose, compare with other imaging techniques [5].

There are three different quantities of CT scan radiation dose, weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDIw), dose length (DLP). These values is used for characterizing radiation output of scanner [6,7], to protect the patients from the risk of ionizing radiation, that need to manage the dose levels in order to reflected the essential process of optimization the technical parameters, which effect doses of CT scan [8]. This study conduct in three medical imaging centres to compare the current radiation doses in Erbil city with other relevant literatures.

The quantities of radiation are significantly high and vary through different scanner and anatomical region. Therefore, the operators should justify, and optimize the amount of ionizing radiation doses of CT scan unnecessary to the patient [9].

Material and Methods

This study was conducted in three medical imaging centres, Department of radiology in PAR Hospital, Hawler Hospital, and Cardiac Centre, in Erbil.

The data contain characteristics of patients, who performed CT scan procedure in these hospitals, age, weight, height and body mass index (BMI).

The technical factors of CT equipment was record for each patient tube-potential (Kv), tube current (mAs), slice thickness, and scan range. Radiation output include volume computed tomography Dose Index (CTDIv) or weighted computed tomography Dose Index (CTDIw), dose length product (DLP).

The information obtained for 335 patients that undergoing various CT examinations including head, chest, and abdomen were collected. Volume CT dose index CTDI vol is a measure of amount of energy deposited per unit mass, proportional to absorbed dose; unit is the Gray (Gy). DLP takes into account scan length; it is the product of the CTDIvol . Scan length (in centimetres), unit of DLP is mGy.cm.

Radiation doses of CT system were calculated in the program CTEXPO (Version 2.3.1, Germany), this program provide as with CTDIw and dose length product (DLP) automatically, by scanning parameters as input, which including patient age, weight, height and body mass index (BMI), the results were collected in Microsoft Excel and analysis [10].

Results

The aim of this work was to compare radiation doses from CT scanner in Erbil hospitals with other literatures. There were three CT scanners procedures included in this data are used for diagnostic procedures. CT Expo-software calculated CTDIw, and DLP. The data were in regards to 335 of CT underwent head scanning, chest and abdomen, 120 who underwent head CT scan, 80 who underwent chest, and 140 abdomen CT examinations (Table 1).

Hospital Region of examination No patients Age (year) Weight (kg) Height (m)
PAR
  Head 40 65 ± 2.5 70 ± 10.2 1.68 ± 2.15
  Chest 20 38 ± 5.8 75 ± 13.6 1.65 ± 1.47
  Abdomen 50 55 ± 3.7 75 ± 6.9 1.61 ± 2.28
Hawler
  Head 30 63 ± 7.2 72 ± 7.8 1.65 ± 1.33
  Chest 30 38 ± 8.6 75 ± 8.5 1.73 ± 2.12
  Abdomen 40 53 ± 9.8 68 ± 3.2 1.62 ± 3.05
Cardic center
  Head 50 56 ± 7.8 72 ± 7.6 1.63 ± 3.1
  Chest 30 48 ± 6.2 71 ± 10.2 1.66 ± 1.27
  Abdomen 45 53 ± 2.9 73 ± 9.3 1.62 ± 1.36

Table 1: Patients Characteristics.

The mean age for the patients, who participated in this study ranged from 38 to 68 years old. While the mean values for weight ranged from 68 to 75 kg, and from 1.61 to 1.70 m for height respectively. The slice thickness for patients was ranged between 4.0 to 10.0 mm thicknesses, voltage CT equipment between 110 to 120 Kv for all patients examinations (Tables 2 and 3).

Hospitals Region of Examination Tube Curren (mAs) SliceThickness (mm) Scan Range (cm)
PAR
  Head  418.5 ± 42.8 3.0 12.5 ± 1.4
  Chest 156.3 ± 23.1 5.0 44.1 ± 3.1
  Abdomen 200 ± 39.5 5.0 43.4 ± 9.3
Hawler
  Head 275 ± 8.6 3.0 60.1 ± 8.6
  Chest 75.1 ± 11.7 5.0 7.2 ± 1.7
  Abdomen 85.0 ± 0.22 5.0 6.3 ± 1.5
Cardic center
  Head 288 5.0 63.4 ± 1.3
  Chest 108 5.0 12.6 ± 6.8
  Abdomen 80.0 5.0 13.1 ± 3.4

Table 2: CT scan equipment's parameters.

 
Hospitals Region Examined CTDIvol CTDIw DLP
PAR
  Head 60.2 ± 1.4 60 ± 1.7 795.9 ± 115.8
  Chest 6.2 ± 4.3 8.6 ± 2.6 388.5 ± 156.1
  Abdomen 11.9 ± 8.8 9.8 ± 3.1 632.8 ± 378.3
Hawler
  Head 47.7 ± 3.4 48.6 ± 1.3 652 ± 55.4
  Chest 3.5 ± 2.1 7.6 ± 1.7 156 ± 88.5
  Abdomen 4.8 ± 1.9 9.8 ± 3.5 248.7 ± 95.8
Cardic Center
  Head 61.1 ± 7.4 57.3 ± 10.5 884 ± 182.2
  Chest 10.2 ± 5.1 8.4 ± 2.2 575.5 ± 246.1
  Abdomen 9.2 ± 7.36 6.7 ± 5.8 385.8 ± 172.4

Table 3: CT-dose index volume, CT-dose index weight, and dose length product measurements.

Table 4 describe the comparison between the values of radiation doses in Erbil hospitals CTDIvol, CTDIw, and DLP with other literatures. The values of CT head, chest, and abdomen in lower level doses than Malaysia and United Kingdom.

Study Region CTDIvol CTDIw DLP
This study Head 58 55 780
United Kingdom 56 57 690
Malaysia 63 46.8 1050
This study Chest 7 8 373
United Kingdom 10 14 400
Malysia 15 19.9 600
This study Abdomen 9 8.7  
UK 12 16 350
Malysia 17 12.8 450

Table 4: Comparison of CT scans doses with other literatures.

Discussion

The radiation dose of Computed Tomography, is higher than other diagnostic imaging equipment, CT technique parameters including tube potential (Kvp), current product (mAs), scan length (DLP), pitch (the shift per rotation ratio), which CT dose depended on these factors [11]. The mean doses in this study and CT parameters among radiology department of each hospital, the scanner doses are in agreement with other literatures from previous study, and with National reference measurements (NDR) [12]. Significant variation was shown in tables [13,14] for head, chest, and abdomen radiation doses. Highest dose index was founding head imaging, with value of about 65.9 mGy, whereas the lowest value of 3.5 mGy was recorded for chest examination [15,16]. Variation between these examinations may be due to the use non-optimised exposure factors that deepened on adjusting mAs, or poor knowledge of protocols of scanner procedures, that would increase the risk of cancer to patients examined by CT scan [17,18]. It has been noted that necessary to monitoring the ionizing radiation in medical imaging centres in Erbil the dose must be according to age, weight, and body mass index of the patients. CT doses to recognize that invaluable diagnostic system to protect patients from that amount of radiation should be considered safe [19,20]. This study is a basis in the optimisation techniques particularly for Multislice modern CT scan units, dosage levels from scanners, and number of CT examinations.

Conclusion

The CTDIvol, CTDIw, and DLP for CT scan in Erbil hospitals; these presented doses were lower compared with other literatures. Radiation dose is good estimating by used of CT-Expo software, which is a useful tool for these measurements. Body mass index of patient play important role in radiation dose. Finally, it is awareness that voltage KVp) and pitch may have been affected patient dose. Dose as Low as Reasonably (ALARA), while maintaining the patient outweigh the risk.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University, meeting Code: 8, Paper Code: 11, Date 13/10/2019.

References

  1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357: 2277-2284.
  2. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, et al. (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. PMID Radiology 230: 619-628.
  3. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisession CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257: 158-166.
  4. Guite KM, Hinshaw JL, Ranallo FN, Lindstrom MJ, Lee FT (2011) Ionizing radiation in abdominal CT: unindicated multiphase scans are an important source of medically unnecessary exposure. J Am Coll Radiol 8: 756-761.
  5. Broder J, Warshauer DM (2006) Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000-2005. Emerg Radiol 13: 25-30.
  6. Duan X, Wang J, Christner JA, Leng S, Grant KL, et al. (2011) Dose reduction to anterior surfaces with organ-based tube-current modulation: evaluation of performance in a phantom study. AJR 197: 689-695.
  7. Shrimpton P (2004) Assessment of patient dose in CT. In: European guidelines for multislice computed tomography funded by the European Commission 2004: contract number FIGMCT2000-20078-CT-TIP. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: European Commission.
  8. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibilitystudy. AJR 193: 764-771.
  9. Hopper KD, King SH, Lobell ME, TenHave TR, Weaver JS (1997) The breast: in-plane x-ray protection during diagnostic thoracic CT—shielding with bismuth radio protective garments. Radiology 205: 853-858.
  10. Campbell J, Kalra MK, Rizzo S, Maher MM, Shepard J (2005) Scanning beyond anatomic limits of the thorax in chest CT: findings, radiation dose, and automatic current modulation. AJR 185: 1525-1530.
  11. Hamberg LM, Rhea JT, Hunter GJ, Thrall JH (2003) Multi-detector row CT: radiation dose characteristics. Radiology 226: 762-772.
  12. Huda W (2009) What ER radiologists need to know about radiation risks. Emerg Radiol 16: 335-341.
  13. [No authors listed] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Radiation emitting products: what are the radiation risks from CT? Risk estimates from medical imaging.
  14. Donnelly LF (2005) Reducing radiation dose associated with pediatric CT by decreasing unnecessary examinations. AJR 184: 655-657.
  15. Committee to Assess Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation; National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
  16. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) 2007.
  17. Radiation protection 118: referral guidelines for imaging. Luxembourg European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment 2001.
  18. McBride, Paxton B, Warddrop R (2009) Majority of Ordering Physicians Lack Knowledge of Radiation Exposure Risks from CT. American Roentgen Ray Society, Boston MA.
  19. Stmm G, Nagel HD (2018) CT-Expo V 2.3 A Tool for Dose Evaluation in Computed Tomography User’s Guide. 2014.
  20. Valentin J (2007) International Commission on Radiation Protection. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography ( MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. Ann ICRP 37: 1-79 iii.

Citation: Hassan FF (2020) Assessment of Radiation Dose from Computed Tomography in Erbil city, Kurdistan Region: A comparison with National Diagnostic Reference Levels. OMICS J Radiol Vol. 9 No. 1:313 DOI: 10.4172/2167-7964.1000313

Copyright: © 2020 Hassan FF. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Top