Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Keith J Strauss.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The acquisition process for interventional equipment and the care that this equipment receives constitute a comprehensive quality improvement program. This program strives to (a) achieve the production of good image quality that meets clinical needs, (b) reduce radiation doses to the patient and personnel to their lowest possible levels, and (c) provide overall good patient care at reduced cost. Interventional imaging equipment is only as effective and efficient as its supporting facility. The acquisition process of interventional equipment and the development of its environment demand a clinical project leader who can effectively coordinate the efforts of the many professionals who must communicate and work effectively on this type of project. The clinical project leader needs to understand (a) clinical needs of the end users, (b) how to justify the cost of the project, (c) the technical needs of the imaging and all associated equipment, (d) building and construction limitations, (e) how to effectively read construction drawings, and (f) how to negotiate and contract the imaging equipment from the appropriate vendor. After the initial commissioning of the equipment, it must not be forgotten. The capabilities designed into the imaging device can be properly utilized only by well-trained operators and staff who were initially properly trained and receive ongoing training concerning the latest clinical techniques throughout the equipment's lifetime. A comprehensive, ongoing maintenance and repair program is paramount to reducing costly downtime of the imaging device. A planned periodic maintenance program can identify and eliminate problems with the imaging device before these problems negatively impact patient care.
This paper discusses pediatric image quality and radiation dose considerations in state-of-the-art fluoroscopic imaging equipment. Although most fluoroscopes are capable of automatically providing good image quality on infants, toddlers, and small children, excessive radiation dose levels can result from design deficiencies of the imaging device or inappropriate configuration of the equipment's capabilities when imaging small body parts. Important design features and setup choices at installation and during the clinical use of the imaging device can improve image quality and reduce radiation exposure levels in pediatric patients. Pediatric radiologists and cardiologists, with the help of medical physicists, need to understand the issues involved in creating good image quality at reasonable pediatric patient doses. The control of radiographic technique factors by the generator of the imaging device must provide a large dynamic range of mAs values per exposure pulse during both fluoroscopy and image recording as a function of patient girth, which is the thickness of the patient in the posterior-anterior projection at the umbilicus (less than 10 cm to greater than 30 cm). The range of pulse widths must be limited to less than 10 ms in children to properly freeze patient motion. Variable rate pulsed fluoroscopy can be leveraged to reduce radiation dose to the patient and improve image quality. Three focal spots with nominal sizes of 0.3 mm to 1 mm are necessary on the pediatric unit. A second, lateral imaging plane might be necessary because of the child's limited tolerance of contrast medium. Spectral and spatial beam shaping can improve image quality while reducing the radiation dose. Finally, the level of entrance exposure to the image receptor of the fluoroscope as a function of operator choices, of added filter thickness, of selected pulse rate, of the selected field-of-view and of the patient girth all must be addressed at installation.
PURPOSE: To compare grid-controlled variable-rate pulsed fluoroscopy (GCPFL) and continuous fluoroscopy (CFL) for the reduction of radiation exposure during voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) in a pediatric porcine model of vesicoureteral reflux. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional animal care and use committee approval was obtained. Vesicoureteral reflux was simulated in four pigs, and 48 VCUG studies were performed (24 with GCPFL, 24 with CFL). VCUG was performed at abdominal girths of 8-10 cm (group 1, simulates human newborn to 6-month-old infant), 12-13 cm (group 2, simulates 2-3-year-old child), and 15-17 cm (group 3, simulates 10-year-old child). An electronic device calculated total radiation exposure during fluoroscopy and image recording. With five-point ordinal scales, VCUG images were scored independently for anatomic conspicuity and overall diagnostic quality by two radiologists (radiologists A and B). An analysis of variance was used to compare radiation exposures and fluoroscopy times between GCPFL and CFL and to determine whether radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time were dependent on the pig's abdominal girth. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to assess whether fluoroscopy time was correlated with radiation exposure. Anatomic conspicuity and diagnostic quality scores were compared by means of the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Results of analysis of variance revealed that GCPFL resulted in a significant reduction in total radiation exposure compared with CFL for each of the three groups (P < .05 for each comparison), and this reduction was most marked in the larger animals. There were no significant differences in diagnostic quality of the recorded VCUG images (P > .05). Anatomic conspicuity was not significantly different for groups 2 and 3, but there was a significantly higher score for GCPFL in group 1 for radiologist A (P = .04). CONCLUSION: By using GCPFL in the performance of VCUG in a pediatric porcine model of vesicoureteral reflux, total radiation exposure can be reduced by a factor of 4.6-7.5 lower than with CFL, and diagnostic-quality images can be obtained.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance.