A Comparison of Patients Absorption Doses with Bone Deformity Due to the EOS Imaging and Digital Radiology

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Department of Orthopedics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

2 Medical Radiation group, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran branch, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Radiology, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

4 Department of Medical Physics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

 
Background: This study has aimed to measure the patient dose in entire spine radiography by EOS system in comparison with the digital radiography.
Methods: EOS stereo-radiography was used for frontal and lateral view spine imaging in 41 patients in a prospective analytical study. A calibrated dose area product (DAP) meter was used for calibration of the DAP in EOS system. The accuracy and precision of the system was confirmed according to the acceptance testing. The same procedure was used for 18 patients referred for lumbar spine digital radiology (overall 36 images).
Results: Although radiation fields in the EOS were almost twice of that in digital radiology, and the average peak tube voltage (kVp), current supply to the tube (mA), and the average size and age of the patients referred for EOS imaging were greater than digital radiology, however, the average DAP in EOS was 1/5 of that in digital radiology system. Also, the average dose in the EOS was about 1/20 of that in digital radiology.
Conclusion: The patient dose in EOS imaging system was lower in comparison with digital radiology (1/20).

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Kim HY, Lee SK, Lee NK, Choy WS. An anatomical
measurement of medial femoral torsion. J Pediatr
Orthop B. 2012; 21(6):552-7.
2. Rehani MM, Berry M. Radiation doses in computed
tomography. The increasing doses of radiation need
to be controlled. BMJ. 2000; 320(7235):593-4.
3. Buck FM, Guggenberger R, Koch PP, Pfirrmann CW.
Femoral and tibial torsion measurements with 3D
models based on low-dose biplanar radiographs in
comparison with standard CT measurements. AJR Am
J Roentgenol. 2012; 199(5):W607-12.
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE) Diagnostics Assessment Programme: EOS
ultra-low dose 2D/3D x-ray imaging system for
postural assessment. Request for information on
topic. London: NICE; 2010. P. 5.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE) EOS 2D/3D x-ray imaging system: final
scope. London: NICE, Diagnostics Assessment
Programmed; 2010.
6. Faria R, McKenna C, Wade R, Yang H, Woolacott N,
Sculpher M. The EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system:
a cost-effectiveness analysis quantifying the health
benefits from reduced radiation exposure. Eur J
Radiol. 2013; 82(8):e342-9.
7. Escott BG, Ravi B, Weathermon AC, Acharya J, Gordon
CL, Babyn PS, et al. EOS low-dose radiography: a
reliable and accurate upright assessment of lower-limb
lengths. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(23):e1831-7.
8. Baunin C. Comparison between EOS imaging and
CTscan for the femoral and tibial torsion measurements
in children. Congress of European Society of Radiology,
Vienna, Austria; 2014.
9. Mahboub-Ahari A, Hajebrahimi S, Yusefi M, Velayati
A. EOS imaging versus current radiography: a health
technology assessment study. Med J Islam Repub Iran.
2016; 30(1):331.
10. McKenna C, Wade R, Faria R, Yang H, Stirk L,
Gummerson N, et al. EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system:
a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2012; 16(14):1-188.
11. Dubousset J, Charpak G, Skalli W, Deguise J, Kalifa G.
EOS: A new imaging system with low dose radiation
in standing position for spine and bone and joint
disorders. J Musculoskelet Res. 2010; 13(1):1-12.
12. Pardellanse JP. [PhD Thesis]. Assessments of a microgrid
Ionization chamber (EOS) for Low Dose Chest
Radiography. Barcelona, Spain: Medicine Department
of University of Barcelona; 2015.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 5, Issue 3
May 2017
Pages 145-148

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 February 2017
  • Revise Date: 16 March 2017
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics