ESTABLISHMENT OF TYPICAL DOSE VALUE FOR INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY EXAMINATION IN RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL PENGAJAR UPM
Keywords:Diagnostic Reference Level, DRL, Radiation Dosage, Interventional Radiology, Cerebral Procedure, Typical Dose Value, Dose Management
Angiography is commonly used as a diagnostic imaging tool for diagnosing and treating the patient from simple to complex examination. Despite the advancement in imaging technologies, the radiation dose to the patient remains a concern when using this procedure. Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) are used to identify the amount of dose exposed to the patient and monitor the high dose received by an individual in a specified radiological procedure. The aim of this study is to establish Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) based on median data dose distribution for cerebral examination (cerebral angiography and stroke thrombectomy) and compared with established Malaysian National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRLs). The Dose Area Product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time were recorded using clinical data from the participating modality from 1 January 2022 until 31 December 2022 at Teaching Hospital Universiti Putra Malaysia (HPUPM). The data collected for each procedure with a minimum recommended number of patients (at least 30) required to propose a DRL for each examination type within the data collection period. The mean value, standard deviation, median value, and 3rd quartile were calculated using Microsoft Excel Version 2013. The Typical Dose Value for the interventional procedure was defined as the median of the distribution of DRL quantities and required further optimization. The distribution of DAP values for the cerebral angiogram and stroke thrombectomy ranged between 5.05 mGy.m2 to 31.80 mGy.m2 and 7.03 mGy.m² to 43.23 mGy.m² respectively. The institutional DRLs for cerebral angiogram (10.60 mGy.m2) and stroke thrombectomy (21.80 mGy.m2) were higher than the established Malaysian National DRL. From the findings, stroke thrombectomy examinations recorded the highest Typical Dose value follow by cerebral angiogram examination. Generally, the factors that can affect DRL values are a patient-related factor, equipment-related factor, the complexity of the procedures, operator’s experience in handling the machine and interventional radiologist experience that can contribute to various results.
Boal, T. J., & Pinak, M. (2015). Dose limits to the lens of the eye: International basic safety standards and related guidance. Annals of the ICRP, 44, 112–117.
Mahadevappa, M. 2001. Fluoroscopy: Patient radiation exposure issues. RadioGraphics. Vol 21 Issues 4 (1022-1045)
IAEA. (2017, August 1). Radiation Protection in Fluoroscopy. https://www.iaea.org/resources/rpop/health-professionals/radiology/fluoroscopy
Hayashi, S., Takenaka, M., Hosono, M., Kogure, H., Hasatani. (2021). Diagnostic reference levels for fluoroscopy-guided gastrointestinal procedures in Japan from the rex-gi study: A nationwide multicentre prospective observational study. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Papanastasiou, E., Protopsaltis, A., Finitsis, S., Hatzidakis, A., Prassopoulos, P., & Siountas, A. (2021). Institutional diagnostic reference levels and peak skin doses in selected diagnostic and therapeutic interventional radiology procedures. Physica Medica, 89, 63–71.
Vañó, E., Miller, D. L., Martin, C. J., Rehani, M. M., Kang, K., Rosenstein, M., Ortiz-López, P., Mattsson, S., Padovani, R., & Rogers , A. (2017). ICRP publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in medical imaging. Annals of the ICRP, 46(1), 1–144.
Ben O’Sullivan & Stacy Georgen. 2017. Plain Radiograph/X-ray. (https://www.insideradiology.com.au/plain-radiograph-x-ray/).
Brent Burbridge. 2017. Principles of Imaging Techniques. (https://openpress.usask.ca/undergradimaging/chapter/angiography/)
Damijan Skrk, Urban Zdesar & Dejan Zontar. 2006. Diagnostic Reference Levels for X-ray Examinations in Slovenia. Radiol Oncol.40 (3): 89-95.
Daniel J Bell. Zemar Vajuhudeen et al. 2021. Diagnostic Reference Level. (https://radiopaedia.org/articles/diagnostic-reference-level).
Erskine J. Brendan, Zoe Brady & Elissa M. Marshall. 2014. Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Angiographic and Fluoroscopic Procedures: Australian Practice. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 37:75-82.
IAEA. 2014. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3.
ICRP. 2017. Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. Vol 46. No 1. ISSN 0146-645.
Metaxas I. Vasileios, Gerasimos A. Messaris, Aristea N. Lekatou, Theodore G. Petsas & George S. Panayiotakis. 2018. Patient Doses in Common Diagnostic X-ray Examinations. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 1-16.
MOH. 2013. Malaysian Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging (Radiology). Radiation Health and Safety Section.
Oluwakayode Samuel Oyedokum, Adeseye Muyiwa Arogunjo, Joseph Irewole Fatukasi & Adedeji Ayoola Egberongbe. 2020. Diagnostic Reference Level of Computed Tomography Examinations and Need for Dose Optimization in Ondo State, Nigeria. Iran J Med Phys. Vol: 7. No 4.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.