RADIATION protection during diagnostic studies.

Abstract

HomeRadiologyVol. 57, No. 6 PreviousNext EditorialRadiation Protection During Diagnostic StudiesPublished Online:Dec 1 1951https://doi.org/10.1148/57.6.886MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractWith the present widespread use of radiologic methods of diagnosis by both trained and untrained personnel, the problem of protection from direct and stray radiation has assumed increasing importance. In the case of the operator, the danger may lie in exposure to stray radiation over a long period of time or in injudicious exposure to direct radiation as a result of inadequate shielding or disregard of safety factors. The patient may be unwittingly over-irradiated because of poor judgment on the part of the radiologist or may suffer from the cumulative effect of successive examinations when a full history of earlier exposure has been withheld.Fluoroscopy is probably attended by the greatest danger unless adequate precautions are taken. Braestrup showed by measurement studies that increasing the target-panel distance from 8 to 12 inches reduced the skin dose about 33 per cent with the same r per minute at the screen. Decreases in the dose to the skin were shown to be obtainable, also, by an increase in the added filtration, a reduction of 50 per cent being accomplished by an additional 0.5 to 1.0 Al without any loss in the diagnostic value of the image. Smaller fields not only cut down the area of exposure but also reduced back-scatter and, finally, with higher voltage the skin dose was less for the same illumination.It was also found by Braestrup that the fluoroscopist may be the recipient of appreciable amounts of stray radiation when using a fluoroscope of the horizontal or tilt type, because of the space left between the shielding cone and the table top to permit movement of the Bucky diaphragm. This scattering is of much greater intensity than scattered radiation from the patient. The danger can be mitigated, however, by adequate shielding of the open space, although protective gloves and apron or a lead-protected chair are still highly essential. After ascertaining the number of r per minute received by the patient's skin on any given installation, a self-limiting fluoroscopic timer will add an excellent safety factor.In routine radiography there is little reason for the operator to receive any appreciable dose of radiation if the control is properly located and shielded, and if he exercises the basic rules of safety. Certain radiographic procedures, however, may entail excessive exposure unless special precautions are observed. The examination of infants and small children falls within this category, since often the child must be held by an attendant. This should be someone not regularly exposed to radiation, or a protective lead-rubber apron and gloves should be worn. Under no circumstances should an x-ray technician or operator hold dental films in the patient's mouth while an exposure is being made, as this will inevitably lead to severe radiation damage. Roentgen studies of the mentally defective also present a special problem, as these patients must frequently be held in position.Article HistoryPublished in print: Dec 1951 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles RSNA Education Exhibits RSNA Case Collection Vol. 57, No. 6 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download