Patient Shielding in Ultra-High-Resolution Cone-Beam CT of the Upper Extremity with a Twin Robotic X-Ray System

Background/Objectives: Gantry-free cone-beam CT (CBCT) allows for ultra-high-resolution (UHR) upper extremity imaging in a comfortable tableside position. The aim of this study was to assess the organ-specific radiation burden and the effect of dedicated lead shielding in the UHR-CBCT of the wrist and elbow. Methods: A modified Alderson-Rando phantom was scanned with the tableside UHR-CBCT mode of a twin robotic X-ray system employing identical scan parameters for wrist and elbow imaging. An ion chamber was used in conjunction with an electrometer to obtain representative organ dose measurements for the eye lens, thyroid gland, breast tissue, and abdomen. All measurements were performed with and without lead shielding. Results: Irrespective of the examined upper extremity joint, the highest absorbed dose among the assessed organs was determined for the eye lens (wrist imaging: 0.10 ± 0.01 mGy, elbow imaging: 0.12 ± 0.01 mGy). The most effective organ dose reduction by means of shielding in wrist CBCT was achieved for the thyroid gland (-17%). In elbow CBCT, the abdomen (-48%) and the ipsilateral breast (-39%) benefited particularly from shield protection. Conclusions: Although shielding was more effective in elbow than wrist scans, the overall impact in terms of absolute dose reduction was marginal.

Photon-counting computed tomography for paediatric congenital heart defects yields images of high diagnostic quality with low radiation doses at both 70 kV and 90 kV

BACKGROUND

Photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) is a new clinical method that may show better diagnostic quality at lower radiation doses than conventional CT.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the diagnostic quality and radiation dose of paediatric cardiovascular PCCT for diagnosis of congenital heart defects at 70 kV and 90 kV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective assessment included clinical non-gated paediatric PCCT examinations for assessment of congenital heart defects. Radiation doses were recorded, and overall and specific diagnostic quality (1-4) were scored by four paediatric radiologists. Agreement, differences, and trends were assessed by percent rater agreement, intraclass correlation, Mann-Whitney tests, and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests.

RESULTS

Seventy children with congenital heart defects were examined at 70 kV (n = 35; age 2 days-16 years; 63% boys) or 90 kV (n = 35; age 2 days-17 years; 51% boys). All observers gave a median score of 4 (high diagnostic quality) for both 70 kV and 90 kV, with no difference in median values between tube voltages (all P > 0.06). Agreement for overall scores was 66-94% for 70 kV and 60-77% for 90 kV. Agreement for specific scores was 80-97% for 70 kV and 83-89% for 90 kV. Size-dependent dose estimate was 0.68 mGy (0.25-2.02 mGy) for 70 kV and 1.10 mGy (0.58-2.71 mGy; P < 0.001) for 90 kV. Effective dose was 0.30 mSv (0.15-0.82 mSv) for 70 kV and 0.39 mSv (0.22-1.51 mSv; P = 0.01) for 90 kV.

CONCLUSION

Paediatric cardiovascular PCCT yields images for congenital heart defects of high diagnostic quality with low radiation dose at both 70 kV and 90 kV.

To shield or not to shield: shielding may have unintended effects on patient dose in CT

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the patient out-of-plane shield is to reduce the patient radiation dose. Its effect on tube current modulation was evaluated with the out-of-plane shield visible in the localizer but absent in the scan range in chest CT with different CT scanners.

METHODS

An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with six different CT scanners from three different vendors. The chest was first scanned without any shielding, and then with the out-of-plane shield within the localizer but outside the imaged volume. All pitch values of each scanner were used. The tube current values with and without the out-of-plane shield were collected and used to evaluate the effect of overscanning and tube current modulation (TCM) on patient radiation dose.

RESULTS

The highest increase in cumulative mA was 217%, when the pitch was 1.531. The tube current value increased already 8.9 cm before the end of the scanned anatomy and the difference between the tube current of the last slices (with and without the out-of-plane shield in the localizer) was 976%.

CONCLUSION

Applying an out-of-plane shield outside the scanned volume but visible in the localizer images may increase the patient dose considerably if the scanner's TCM function is based only on localizer images.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The use of an out-of-plane shield in CT may strongly increase the tube current modulation and thus provide the patient with a higher radiation dose.

KEY POINTS

• Applying an out-of-plane shield outside the scanned volume but visible in the localizer images may increase patient radiation dose considerably. • The effect is visible with scanners that use solely localizer-based tube current modulation. • Features like overscanning may be difficult for the user to notice when planning the scanning, and yet they may affect tube current modulation and through it to patient dose.

Patient shielding during dentomaxillofacial radiography: Recommendations from the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology

BACKGROUND

The American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology established an ad hoc committee to draft evidence-based recommendations and clinical guidance for the application of patient contact shielding during dentomaxillofacial imaging.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The committee reviewed monographs and reports from radiation protection organizations and studies that reported radiation dose to gonads, breasts, and thyroid gland from dentomaxillofacial imaging.

RESULTS

Considering the absence of radiation-induced heritable effects in humans and the negligible dose to the gonads and fetus from dentomaxillofacial imaging, the committee recommends discontinuing shielding of the gonads, pelvic structures, and fetuses during all dentomaxillofacial radiographic imaging procedures. On the basis of radiation doses from contemporaneous maxillofacial imaging, the committee considered that the risks from thyroid cancer are negligible and recommends that thyroid shielding not be used during intraoral, panoramic, cephalometric, and cone-beam computed tomographic imaging.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This position statement informs and educates the reader on evolving radiation protection practices and provides simple, unequivocal guidance to dental personnel to implement these guidelines. State and local authorities should be contacted to update regulations to reflect these recommendations.

Radiographers' attitudes toward the use of lead contact shielding

INTRODUCTION

Lead contact shielding has been a crucial component of patient radiation protection since it was first introduced in the early 1900s. Concerns surrounding the hereditary effects of ionising radiation were a driver for using lead shielding. Recently the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) and the British Institute of Radiology (BIR) have published position papers that suggest that lead contact shielding is no longer needed due to reduced radiation doses for x-ray examinations. This work examines radiographers' opinions on these position papers.

METHODS

An online survey with quantitative and qualitative elements was designed to explore knowledge and attitudes toward the BIR and AAPM position papers. The population for this survey was all qualified radiographers.

RESULTS

The majority (59%) of participants are aware of the AAPM guidance, and 76% are aware of the BIR guidance. Given the changes in the gonad tissue weighting factor, 66% believed additional emphasis should be placed on protecting organs and tissues with higher tissue weighting factors. The vast majority (87%) believed lead shielding is not the primary dose reduction strategy, with 82% agreeing that lead shielding may interfere with the AEC.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies a perception that lead protection may still play a role in patient protection, particularly for children and pregnant patients. However, it is not considered the primary mechanism of protection. More specific guidance and information are needed to incorporate the guidance for radiographers into working practice, improving patient care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Lead shielding remains a tool for radiation protection in particular examinations, however, its role has diminished in clinical practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Additional research is required into the number of repeat x-rays associated with the use of lead shielding and the actual dose saving for shielding outside the field of view. Additional education and specific clarification on when to use and not use lead contact shielding is required.

Exploring radiographers' perceptions and knowledge about patient lead shielding: a cross-sectional study in Greece and Cyprus

The present study aimed to explore radiographers' knowledge, clinical practice and perceptions regarding the use of patient lead shielding in Greece and Cyprus. Qualitative data were analyzed using conceptual content analysis and through the classification of findings into themes and categories. A total of 216 valid responses were received. Most respondents reported not being aware of the patient shielding recommendations issued by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (67%) or the guidance issued by the British Institute of Radiology (69%). Shielding-related training was generally not provided by radiography departments (74%). Most of them (85%) reported that they need specific guidance on lead shielding practices. Also, 82% of the respondents said that lead shielding should continue to be used outside the pelvic area when imaging pregnant patients. Pediatric patients are the most common patient category to which lead shielding was applied. Significant gaps in relevant training have been identified among radiographers in Greece and Cyprus, highlighting the need for new protocols and provision of adequate training on lead shielding practices. Radiography departments should invest in appropriate shielding equipment and adequately train their staff.

The effect of breast shielding outside the field of view on breast entrance surface dose in axial X-ray examinations: a phantom study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of outside-field-of-view (FOV) lead shielding on the entrance surface dose (ESD) of the breast on an anthropomorphic X-ray phantom for a variety of axial skeleton X-ray examinations.

METHODS

Using an anthropomorphic phantom and radiation dosimeter, the ESD of the breast was measured with and without outside-FOV shielding in anterior-posterior (AP) abdomen, AP cervical spine, occipitomental 30° (OM30) facial bones, AP lumbar spine, and lateral lumbar spine radiography. The effect of several exposure parameters, including a low milliampere-seconds technique, grid use, automatic exposure control use, wraparound lead (WAL) use, trolley use, and X-ray table use, on the ESD of the breast with and without outside-FOV shielding was investigated. The mean ESD (μSv) and standard deviation for each radiographic protocol were calculated. A one-tailed Student's t-test was carried out to evaluate whether ESD to the breast was reduced with the use of outside-FOV shielding.

RESULTS

A total of 920 breast ESD measurements were recorded across the different protocol parameters. The largest decrease in mean ESD of the breast with outside-FOV shielding was 0.002 μSv (P = 0.084), recorded in the AP abdomen on the table with a grid, OM30 on the table with a grid, OM30 standard protocol on the trolley, and OM30 on the trolley with WAL protocols. This decrease was found to be statistically non-significant.

CONCLUSION

This study found no significant decrease in the ESD of the breast with the use of outside-FOV shielding for the AP abdomen, AP cervical spine, OM30 facial bones, AP lumbar spine, or lateral lumbar spine radiography across a range of protocols.

THE EFFECT OF OUT-OF-PLANE PATIENT SHIELDING ON CT RADIATION EXPOSURE AND TUBE CURRENT MODULATIONS: A PHANTOM STUDY ACROSS THREE VENDORS

The aim of this study was to evaluate how out-of-plane patient shielding affects radiation exposure parameters and tube current modulation on different vendors' computed tomography (CT) scanners. Helical CT scans were performed using two homogenous phantoms to mimic patient attenuation. Four CT scanners from three vendors were investigated by varying the distance of the patient shield from the border of the imaging volume. Scans were performed with a shield placed before and after the localizer. Changes in volume computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP) and tube current-time products were studied. Out-of-field lead shield increased the CTDIvol and DLP values for each scanner at least for one scan setting when the shield was present in the localizer. The most notable changes were recorded with >1.3 pitch values when the shield was closest to the scanned volume (2.5 cm), and the scan direction was towards the shield. The usage of patient shields in the localizer CT scans can disturb TCM even when placed 7.5 cm away from the edge of the scan.

Systematic literature review on the benefit of patient protection shielding during medical X-ray imaging: Towards a discontinuation of the current practice

PURPOSE

Patient shielding during medical X-ray imaging has been increasingly criticized in the last years due to growing evidence that it often provides minimal benefit and may even compromise image quality. In Europe, and as also shown in a short assessment in Switzerland, the use of patient shielding is inhomogeneous. The aim of this study was to systematically review recent literature in order to assess benefits and appraise disadvantages related to the routine use of patient shielding.

METHODS

To evaluate benefits and disadvantages related to the application of patient shielding in radiological procedures, a systematic literature review was performed for CT, radiography, mammography and fluoroscopy-guided medical X-ray imaging. In addition, reports from medical physics societies and authorities of different countries were considered in the evaluation.

RESULTS

The literature review revealed 479 papers and reports on the topic, from which 87 qualified for closer analysis. The review considered in- and out-of-plane patient shielding as well as shielding for pregnant and pediatric patients. Dose savings and other dose and non-dose related effects of patient shielding were considered in the evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patient shielding has been used in radiological practice for many years, its use is no longer undisputed. The evaluation of the systematic literature review of recent studies and reports shows that dose savings are rather minimal while significant dose- and non-dose-related detrimental effects are present. Consequently, the routine usage of patient protection shielding in medical X-ray imaging can be safely discontinued for all modalities and patient groups.

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.

Achievable dose reductions with gonadal shielding for children and adults during abdominal/pelvic radiographic examinations: A Monte Carlo simulation

PURPOSE

Recently, medical professionals have reconsidered the practice of routine gonadal shielding for radiographic examinations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the gonadal dose reduction achievable with gonadal shields in the primary beam during abdominal/pelvic radiographic examinations under ideal and non-ideal shielding placement.

METHODS

CT scans of CIRS anthropomorphic phantoms were used to perform voxelized Monte Carlo simulations of the photon transport during abdominal/pelvic radiographic examinations with standard filtration and 0.1 mm Cu + 1 mm Al added filtration to estimate gonadal doses for an adult, 5 yr old, and newborn phantom with and without gonadal shields. The reduction in dose when the shields were not placed at the ideal locations was also evaluated. The ratio of the number of scattered-to-primary photons (SPR) across the anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the phantoms was also reported.

RESULTS

The simulated dose reduction with ideal shielding placement for the testes and ovaries ranged from 80% to 90% and 55% to 70% respectively. For children, a misalignment of the shield to the gonad of 4 cm reduced the measured dose reduction to the gonads to <10%. For adults, this effect did not occur until the misalignment increased to ~6 cm. Effects of dose reduction with and without the gonadal shields properly placed were similar for standard filtration and added filtration. SPR at the level of the testes was consistently <1 for all phantoms. SPR for ovaries was ~1.5 for the adult and 5-yr old, and ~1 for the newborn phantom.

CONCLUSION

Dose reduction with ideal alignment of the simulated gonadal shield to the gonads in this study was greater for the testes than the ovaries; both reductions were substantial. However, the dose reductions were greatly reduced (to <10%) for both sexes with misalignment of the gonads to the shields by 4 cm for children and 6 cm for adults.