Radiography
Volume 15, Issue 4 , Pages 306-312 , November 2009

A baseline study of entrance dose and image quality for lumbar spine radiography in Calabar, Nigeria

  • N.O. Egbe

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiography, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Present address: Department of Biomedical Physics and Bioengineering, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. Tel.: +44 7896935609.
    • ,
  • N.O. Chiaghanam

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiography, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
    • ,
  • W.E. Azogor

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiography, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
    • ,
  • S.O. Inyang

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physics, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

Received 18 April 2008 ,Revised 30 June 2008 ,Accepted 30 September 2008.

References 

  1. United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of ionising radiation, vol. 1. Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes; 2000.
  2. International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP). Recommendations of the ICRP Publication 103; 2007.
  3. Tingberg A, Sjöström D. Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2005;114(1–3):286–293
  4. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260; 1996.
  5. Hart D, Wall B. Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and diagnostic examinations. NRPB-W4; 2002.
  6. Ogunseyinde AO, Adeniran SAM, Obed RI, Akinlade BI, Ogundare FO. Comparison of entrance surface doses of some x-ray examinations with CEC reference doses. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2002;98(2):231–234
  7. Ogundare FO, Uche CZ, Balogun FA. Radiological parameters and radiation doses of patients undergoing abdomen, pelvis and lumbar spine x-ray examinations in three Nigerian hospitals. British Journal of Radiology. 2004;77:934–940
  8. Grondin Y, Matthews K, McEntee M, Rainford L, Casey M, Tonra M, et al. Dose-reducing strategies in combination offers substantial potential benefits to females requiring X-ray examination. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2004;108(2):123–132
  9. Oishi Y, Sano Y, Yoshida K, Iwanaga H, Yasui K, Fujimoto K, et al. Study of image quality (contrast) and reduction of patient dose by using heavy metal filters. Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2002;58(1):109–114
  10. Geijer H, Persliden J. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2005;114(1–3):240–245
  11. Brindhaban A, Al Khalifah K, Al Wathiqi G, Al Ostath H. Effect of x-ray tube potential on image quality and patient dose for lumbar spine computed radiography examinations. Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2005;28(4):216–222
  12. Zhang J, Li Y, Zhang W, Wang C, Hou Q. Investigation of low-dose radiography for the lumbar spine using digital radiography system. Chinese Journal of Radiology. 2007;41(1):19–21
  13. Almen A, Tingberg A, Mattsson S, Besjakov J, Kheddache S, Lanhede B, et al. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. British Journal of Radiology. 2000;73(875):1192–1199
  14. Brennan PC, Johnston D. Irish X-ray departments demonstrate varying levels of adherence to European guidelines on good radiographic technique. British Journal of Radiology. 2002;75(891):243–248
  15. Rainford LA, Al-Qattan E, McFadden S, Brennan PC. CEC analysis of radiological images produced in Europe and Asia. Radiography. 2007;13:202–209
  16. Udosen AM, Ikpeme AI, Ngim NE. A prospective study of spinal cord injury in the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar Nigeria: preliminary report. The Internet Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery. 2007;5(1):
  17. González L, Vañó E, Oliete S, Manrique J, Hernáez JM, Lahuerta J, et al. Report of an image quality and dose audit according to Directive 97/43/Euratom at Spanish private radiodiagnostics facilities. British Journal of Radiology. February 1999;72:186–192
  18. Havukainen R, Pirinen M. Patient dose and image quality in five standard x-ray examinations. Medical Physics. 1993;20(3):813–817
  19. Papadimitriou D, Perris A, Molfetas MG, Panagiotakis N, Manetou A, Tsourouflis G, et al. Patient dose, image quality and radiographic techniques for common X ray examinations in two Greek hospitals and comparison with European guidelines. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2001;95(1):43–48
  20. Muhogora WE, Nyanda AM, Kazema RR. Experiences with the European guidelines on quality criteria for radiographic images in Tanzania. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics [electronic resource]. 2001;2(4):219–226American College of Medical Physics
  21. Young KJ. Should plain films of the lumbar spine be taken in the posterior-to-anterior or anterior-to-posterior position? A study using decision analysis. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 2007;30(3):200–205
  22. The influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality and patient absorbed dose in lumbar spine radiography; 2001.
  23. Sandborg M, McVey G, Dance DR, Carlsson GA, Verdun FR. Optimization of chest and lumbar spine radiography by Monte Carlo modeling of the patient and imaging system. Proceedings of SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering. 1999;3659(I):444–454
  24. McVey G, Sandborg M, Dance DR, Carlsson GA. A study and optimization of lumbar spine X-ray imaging systems. British Journal of Radiology. 2003;76(903):177–188
  25. Brennan PC, Nash M. Increasing FFD: an effective dose-reducing tool for lateral lumbar spine investigations. Radiography. 1998;4(4):251–259
  26. Brennan PC, McDonnell S, O'Leary D. Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for x-ray examinations. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2004;108(3):263–268
  27. Lau S, Ng K, Abdullah BJJ. Viewing conditions in diagnostic imaging: a survey of selected Malaysian hospitals. Journal of Hong Kong College of Radiologists. 2001;4:264–267
  28. Hartmenn E, Stieve FE. Quality control of radiographic illuminators and associated viewing equipment. BIR Report 18; 1989. p. 135–7.
  29. Hart D, Hillier M, Wall B. Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK – 2005 review. HPA-RPD-029; 2007.
  30. Schandorf C, Tetteh GK. Analysis of the status of x-ray diagnosis in Ghana. British Journal of Radiology. 1998;71:1040–1048
  31. Valentin J. What practical actions can be used to manage patient dose?. Annals of the ICRP. 2000;30(4):25–34
  32. Egbe NO, Eduwem DU, Ikamaise VC. Investigation of the image quality of plain abdominal radiographs in three Nigerian hospitals. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal. October 2007;3(4):
  33. Thompson MA, Hattaway MP, Hall JD, Dowd SB. Principles of imaging science and protection. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1994;

PII: S1078-8174(08)00100-4

doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2008.09.004

Radiography
Volume 15, Issue 4 , Pages 306-312 , November 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution