Radiation Dose Risk and Diagnostic Benefit in Imaging Investigations
American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
Volume 3, Issue 3-1, June 2015, Pages: 22-26
Received: Mar. 28, 2015; Accepted: Mar. 30, 2015; Published: Apr. 11, 2015
Views 4257      Downloads 57
Authors
Lidia Dobrescu, Electronics Telecommunications and Information Technology Faculty, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
Gheorghe-Cristian Rădulescu, Radiology Department, Central Military Universitary Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The paper presents many facets of medical imaging investigations radiological risks. The total volume of prescribed medical investigations proves a serious lack in monitoring and tracking of the cumulative radiation doses in many health services. Modern radiological investigations equipment is continuously reducing the total dose of radiation due to improved technologies, so a decrease in per caput dose can be noticed, but the increasing number of investigations has determined a net increase of the annual collective dose. High doses of radiation are cumulated from Computed Tomography investigations. An integrated system for radiation safety of the patients investigated by radiological imaging methods, based on smart cards and Public Key Infrastructure allow radiation absorbed dose data storage.
Keywords
Healthcare, Radiation Doses, Radiation Safety
To cite this article
Lidia Dobrescu, Gheorghe-Cristian Rădulescu, Radiation Dose Risk and Diagnostic Benefit in Imaging Investigations, American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering. Special Issue:Bio-Electronics: Biosensors, Biomedical Signal Processing, and Organic Engineering. Vol. 3, No. 3-1, 2015, pp. 22-26. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.s.2015030301.14
References
[1]
ICRP, “2007, Radiological Protection in Medicine”, ICRP Publication 105 Ann. ICRP 37(6).
[2]
Walter Huda, Kent M. Oden and Mohammad R. Khorasani, “Converting Dose-Length Product to Effective Dose at CT“, Radiology. Sep 2008; 248(3): 995–1003, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18710988.
[3]
Siemens, “Dose Parameters and Advanced Dose management on SOMATOM Scanners”, available at www.usa.siemens.com/healthcare
[4]
Available at http:// www.euronuclear.org /info/ encyclopedia /t / tissue-weight-factor.htm.
[5]
UNSCEAR, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/faq.html.
[6]
Kenneth L.Mossman, “The Linear-No-Threshold Debate in Radiation Protection“, available at / www. radpro.com /mossman.pdfssman .pdf.
[7]
Hormesis Kaiser J., A healthful dab of radiation?, Science 2003, 302(5644), 378.
[8]
Medical Radiation Exposure of the European Population, POart1/2, Radiation protection No 180, Directorate-General for Energy Directorate D — Nuclear Safety & Fuel Cycle Unit D3 — Radiation Protection, 2014, available at https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/RP180.pdf
[9]
Radiation and your patient: A Guide for medical Practitioners, A web module produced by Committee 3 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), available at http://www.icrp.org/docs/rad_for_gp_for_web.pdf.
[10]
Wall, B.F., Hart, D., “Revised radiation doses for typical x-ray examinations”, Br. J Radiol., 70 833 (1997), pp. 437- 439.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186