Kerma-area Product Meter Research Articles

Patient doses for barium meal examination in Serbia and Montenegro and potentials for dose reduction through changes in equipment settings

Patient doses for barium meal examination performed at three general hospitals in Serbia and Montenegro were measured using a kerma-area product (KAP) meter. The results were analysed in order to obtain dose-related parameters. Although the observed doses were within the range reported in other studies, intra-hospital and inter-hospital dose variations were significant. Mean KAP values for total examination in three hospitals were 8.4, 24.4 and 13.9 Gy cm2, respectively. Contribution from fluoroscopy was greater than from radiography. Factors contributing to the increased dose delivery were determined and the recommendations on radiographic techniques were made. Changes in radiography settings allowed dose reduction up to 48% in the radiographic part of examination, that is, up to 12% in total dose without loss of image quality. In addition, fluoroscopy time was noted as the second major contributor to the dose variations. The results demonstrated the need for standardisation of practice for barium meal examination in the country.

Ionization chambers for measuring air kerma integrated over beam area. Deviations in calibration values using simplified calibration methods

Calibrations of kerma-area product meters (KAP meters) are often performed using simplified methods. The accuracy thus obtained can be insufficient, especially when the KAP meters are used for optimizing radiological procedures. The deviations between the best available calibration factor (k) and the simplified calibration factor were measured at different clinical x-ray installations. Depending on the type of x-ray installation and calibration method, the quotient ranged from 0.83 to 1.19, reflecting the error made in practice using these methods. A simple alternative calibration method based on comparison with a KAP meter calibrated by the best available method is described. Depending on tube potential and the stability of the electrometers, the uncertainty in the calibration factor derived with this method was between 3.8% and 5.6% (at 95% confidence level).