Consequences of modern anthropometric dimensions for radiographic techniques and patient radiation exposures.
Radiographic techniques are devised on the basis of anatomic dimensions. Inaccurate dimensions can cause radiographs to be exposed inappropriately and patient radiation exposures to be calculated incorrectly. The source of anatomic dimensions in common usage dates back to 1948. The objective of this study was to compare traditional and modern anthropometric data, use modern dimensions to estimate potential errors in patient exposure, and suggest modified technique guidelines. Anthropometry software was used to derive modern anatomic dimensions. Data from routine annual testing were analyzed to develop an x-ray generator output curve. Published tabulated data were used to determine the relationship between tissue half-value layer and kilovoltage. These relationships were used to estimate entrance skin exposure and create a provisional technique guide. While most anatomic regions were actually larger than previously indicated, some were similar, and a few were smaller. Accordingly, exposure estimates were higher, similar, or lower, depending on the anatomic region. Exposure estimates using modern dimensions for clinically significant regions of the trunk were higher than those calculated with traditional dimensions. Exposures of the postero-anterior chest, lateral chest, antero-posterior (AP) abdomen, male AP pelvis, and female AP pelvis were larger by 48%, 31%, 54%, 52%, and 112%, respectively. The dimensions of bony regions of the anatomy, such as the joints and skull, were unchanged. These findings are consistent with the idea that anatomic areas where fat is deposited are larger in the modern U.S. population than they were in previous years. Exposure techniques for manual radiography and calculations of patient dose for automatic exposure control radiography should be adjusted according to the modern dimensions. Population radiation exposure estimates calculated in national surveys should also be modified appropriately.
Shah
Chintan
C
Department of Bioengineering, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA.
Jones
A Kyle
AK
Willis
Charles E
CE
D001842:Bone and Bones / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000528:radiation effects; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007596:Joints / Q000473:pathology / Q000528:radiation effects; D008297:Male; D010361:Patients; D010388:Pelvis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000528:radiation effects; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011839:Radiation, Ionizing; D011859:Radiography / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011860:Radiography, Abdominal / Q000528:radiation effects*; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012886:Skull / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000528:radiation effects; D013909:Thorax / Q000473:pathology / Q000528:radiation effects
Med Phys. 1990 May-Jun;17(3):448-53
2385202
Xray Tech. 1948 May;19(6):287-93
18861481
J Am Coll Radiol. 2007 Jun;4(6):371-88
17544139
Med Phys. 1984 Nov-Dec;11(6):827-32
6513889
Radiology. 2005 May;235(2):354-8
15758190