An assessment of the usefulness of handheld X-ray devices in general radiography based on a performance evaluation experiment

Kim, E.; Park, H.; Choi, H.; Kim, J.

doi:10.61186/ijrr.21.3.545

[Home ] [Archive]

International Journal of Radiation Research

Main Menu

Home

IJRR Information

For Authors

For Reviewers

Subscription

News & Events

Web Mail

Search in website

Receive site information

ISSN

Hard Copy 2322-3243

Online 2345-4229

Online Submission

Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.

Volume 21, Issue 3 (6-2023)

Int J Radiat Res 2023, 21(3): 545-551

Back to browse issues page

An assessment of the usefulness of handheld X-ray devices in general radiography based on a performance evaluation experiment

E. Kim

, H. Park

, H. Choi

, J. Kim

Department of Health and Safety Convergence Science, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea , minbogun@korea.ac.kr

Abstract: (923 Views)

Background: Light and portable handheld X-ray devices are being used more often for diagnosis because they allow radiography procedures to be performed on patients in settings where there may not be stationary X-ray devices, such as islands or mountainous regions. In this study, the performances of handheld X-ray devices (HXD) and stationary X-ray devices (SXD) were compared to determine whether the handheld device could produce diagnostically acceptable image quality outside of hospitals, particularly during a global pandemic. Materials and Methods: For performance evaluation, the accuracy of tube voltage, reproducibility of X-ray dose, linearity, leakage dose, and accuracy of focal spot size were obtained. The accuracy of the tube voltage and the reproducibility and linearity of the X-ray dose were measured to reduce the frequency of patient reimaging as a performance evaluation of the devices. Results: After conducting various experiments, it was found that the percentage average error (PAE) value of the tube voltage was -0.01% for the HXD, and the error of the tube voltage was 0.01% for the SXD, which is lower than the standard 10%. Additionally, when using an HXD according to these standards, medical staff is considered safe from exposure to leakage dose because the leakage dose is 0.26 mSv/year without the use of a partition. Conclusion: Our results provide evidence that images of appropriate quality can be taken with an HXD, offering comparable diagnostic value. It was concluded that the leakage radiation dose would be safe at 0.26 mSv/year without using a radiation shielding partition.

Keywords: Handheld X-ray device, portable X-ray device, performance evaluation, image quality, scatter radiation dose.

Full-Text [PDF 1008 kb] (602 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology

References

1. 1. Benmalek E, Elmhamdi J, Jilbab A (2021) Comparing CT scan and chest X-ray imaging for COVID-19 diagnosis. Biomed Eng Adv, 1: 1-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.bea.2021.100003] [PMID] []

2. Kim EH, Choi YS, Park HM, Na CY, Kim JM, Kim JS, Han TH (2021) Assessment of radiation dose of mobile computed tomography in intensive care units, Radiat Prot Dosim, 196 (1-2): 60-70. [DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncab131] [PMID]

3. Venkategowda P, Rao S, Mutkule D, Taggu A (2014) Unexpected events occurring during the intra-hospital transport of critically ill ICU patients. Indian J Crit Care Med, 18 (6): 354-7. [DOI:10.4103/0972-5229.133880] [PMID] []

4. Parmer H, Lim TC, Goh J, Tan J, Sitoh Y, Hui F (2004) Providing optimal radiology service in the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak: use of mobile CT. Am J Roentgenol, 58: 57-60. [DOI:10.2214/ajr.182.1.1820057] [PMID]

5. Waydhas C, Schneck G, Duswald KH (1995) Deterioration of respiratory function after intra-hospital transport in critically ill surgical patients. Intensive Care Med, 21: 784-789. [DOI:10.1007/BF01700959] [PMID]

6. Waydhas C (1999) Intra hospital transport of critically ill patients. Crit. Care., 3(5): R83-R89. [DOI:10.1186/cc362] [PMID] []

7. Yoon SH, Lee KH, Kim JY, et al. (2020) Chest radiographic and CT findings of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): analysis of nine patients treated in Korea. Korean J Radiol, 21(4): 494-500. [DOI:10.3348/kjr.2020.0132] [PMID] []

8. Xie X, Zhong Z, Zhao W, Zheng C, Wang F, Liu J (2020) Chest CT for typical 2019-nCoV pneumonia: relationship to negative RT-PCR testing. Radiology, 296(2): E41-45. [DOI:10.1148/radiol.2020200343] [PMID] []

9. Leonardi A, Scipione R, Alfieri G et al. (2020) Role of computed tomography in predicting critical disease in patients with covid-19 pneumonia: A retrospective study using a semiautomatic quantitative method. Eur J Radiol, 130: 1-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109202] [PMID] []

10. Peace K, Wilensky EM, Frangos S, et al. (2010) The use of a portable head CT scanner in the intensive care unit. J Neurosci Nurs, 42(2): 109-116. [DOI:10.1097/JNN.0b013e3181ce5c5b] [PMID]

11. Gance CP, Pahade JK, Gortopassi I, et al. (2020). Social distancing with portable chest radiographs during the COVID-19 pandemic: assessment of radiograph technique and image quality obtained at 6 feet and through glass. Radiology, 2(6): 1-7. [DOI:10.1148/ryct.2020200420] [PMID] []

12. Sawicka BD (1995), Portable digital electronic radiography system. Candu Maintenance Conference, Ontario, Canada, 71-77.

13. Jacobi A, Chung M, Bernheim A, Eber C (2020) Portable chest X-ray in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): A pictorial review. Clin Imaging, 64: 35-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.04.001] [PMID] []

14. Eisenhauber E, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prosch H, Schima W (2012) Bedside chest radiography. Respir Care, 57(3): 427-443. [DOI:10.4187/respcare.01712] [PMID]

15. Cohen MD, Long B, Cory DA, Broderick NJ, Smith JA (1989) Digital imaging of the newborn chest. Clin Radiol, 40: 365-368. [DOI:10.1016/S0009-9260(89)80120-5] [PMID]

16. Hong DH, Lim CH, Kim YM, et al. (2021) Necessity of mandatory records on radiological examination. J Radiol Sci Technol, 44(4): 399-407. [DOI:10.17946/JRST.2021.44.4.399]

17. Choi PK (2021) Quality control of diagnostic X-ray equipment in medical field. J Korean Soc Radiol, 15(2): 159-64.

18. Kastan DJ, Ackerman LV, Feczko PJ, Beute GD (1985) Digital radiograph: a review. Henry Ford Hosp Med J, 33(2-3): 88-94.

19. Smathers RL and Brody WR (1985) Digital radiograph: current and future trends. Br J Radiol Suppl, 58: 285-307. [DOI:10.1259/0007-1285-58-688-285] [PMID]

20. Korner M, Weber CH, Wirth S, Pfeifer K, Reiser MF, Treitl M (2007) Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview. Radiographics, 27: 675-686. [DOI:10.1148/rg.273065075] [PMID]

21. Jennings P, Padley SP, Hansell DM (1992) Portable chest radiography in intensive care: a comparison of computed and conventional radiography. Br J Radiol, 65: 852-856. [DOI:10.1259/0007-1285-65-778-852] [PMID]

22. Kim TH, Heo DW, Jeong CW, Ryu JH, Hong YJ, Han SJ, Han TU, Yoon KH (2017) Development of portable digital radiography system with a device for monitoring X-ray source-detector angle and its application in chest imaging. Sensors, 17: 531. [DOI:10.3390/s17030531] [PMID] []

23. Van Dis ML, Miles DA, Parks ET, Razmus TF (1993) Information yield from a hand-held dental x-ray unit. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 76: 381-385. [DOI:10.1016/0030-4220(93)90272-6] [PMID]

24. Kumar GA, Kumar RP, Malleswararao V (2011) Evaluation on X-ray exposure parameters considering tube voltage and exposure time. Int J Eng Sci Technol, 3(4): 3210-3215.

25. Rolf B (2021) Modern diagnostic X-ray sources: Technology, Manufacturing, Reliability. 2nd ed., CRC Press, Florida.

26. Kase KR, Svensson GK, Wolbarst AB, Marks Ma (1983) Measurements of dose from secondary radiation outside a treatment field. In J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys, 9(8): 1177-1183. [DOI:10.1016/0360-3016(83)90177-3]

27. The National Academics (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Board on Radiation Effects Research. National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, D.C.

28. Chaney EL and Hendee WR (1974) Effects of X-ray tube current and voltage on effective focal-spot size. J Med Phys, 1(3): 141-147. [DOI:10.1118/1.1637286] [PMID]

29. Mocy SF and Shazli ZA (2018) A phantom study for the optimization of image quality and radiation dose for common radiography examinations in digital radiography. Iran J Med Phys, 15(4): 271-276.

30. Seilern-Moy K, Vielgrader H, Gerritsmann H, Walzer C (2018) Radiography in the field: assessing a lightweight, handheld, battery-powered dentistry unit for field diagnostic applications. J Zoo Wildl Med, 48(1): 31-39. [DOI:10.1638/2016-0034.1] [PMID]

31. International Electrotechnical Commission (2009) IEC 60601-2-54: 2009 Medical electrical equipment- Part 2-54: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for radiography and radioscopy.

32. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2004) Recent applications of the NCRP public dose limit recommendation for ionizing radiation: NCRP Report 10. (Maryland, United States of America: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).

33. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2005) Structural shielding design for medical X-ray imaging facilities: NCRP Report 147. (Maryland, United States of America: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).

34. Rottke D, Gohlke L, Schrodel R, Hassfeld S, Schulze D (2018) Operator safety during the acquisition of intraoral images with a handheld and portable X-ray device. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 47: 1-9. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20160410] [PMID] []

35. Makdissi J, Pawar RR, Johnson B, Chong BS (2016) The effects of device position on the operator's radiation dose when using a handheld portable X-ray device. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 45: 1-7. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20150245] [PMID] []

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

‎ 10.61186/ijrr.21.3.545

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Kim E, Park H, Choi H, Kim J. An assessment of the usefulness of handheld X-ray devices in general radiography based on a performance evaluation experiment. Int J Radiat Res 2023; 21 (3) :545-551
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4912-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 21, Issue 3 (6-2023)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 48 queries by YEKTAWEB 4652