Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.

The signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) between aluminium sheets and a homogeneous background was measured for various radiation qualities and breast thicknesses to determine the optimal radiation quality when using a Novation DR mammography system. Breast simulating phantoms, with a thickness from 2 cm to 7 cm, and aluminium sheet, with a thickness of 0.2 mm, were used. Three different combinations of anode/filter material and a wide range of tube voltages were employed for each phantom thickness. Each radiation quality was studied using three different dose levels. The tungsten (W) anode and rhodium (Rh) filter combination achieved the specified SDNR at the lowest mean glandular dose for all the phantom thicknesses and X-ray tube voltages. The difference between the doses for different anode/filter combinations increased with the phantom thickness. For a 5-cm phantom, with a peak tube voltage of 27 kV and a SDNR of 5, the mean glandular dose associated with the use of W/Rh was reduced by 49% when compared to the molybdenum/molybdenum (Mo/Mo) anode/filter combination and by 33% when compared to Mo/Rh. Based on these measurements, the use of the W/Rh anode/filter can be recommended. It remains important, however, to select the appropriate dose level.

Evaluation of a radiation protection cabin for invasive electrophysiological procedures.

AIMS: Complex invasive electrophysiological procedures may result in high cumulative operator radiation exposure. Classical protection with lead aprons results in discomfort while radioprotection is still incomplete. This study evaluated the usefulness of a radiation protection cabin (RPC) that completely surrounds the operator. METHODS AND RESULTS: The evaluation was performed independently in two electrophysiology laboratories (E1-Leuven, Belgium; E2-Bordeaux, France), comparing operator radiation exposure using the RPC vs. a 0.5 mm lead-equivalent apron (total of 135 procedures). E1 used thermoluminiscent dosimeters (TLDs) placed at 16 positions in and out of the RPC and nine positions in and out of the apron. E2 used more sensitive electronic personal dosimeters (EPD), placed at waist and neck. The sensitivity thresholds of the TLDs and EPDs were 10-20 microSv and 1-1.5 microSv, respectively. All procedures could be performed unimpeded with the RPC. Median TLD dose values outside protected areas were in the range of 57-452 microSv, whereas doses under the apron or inside the RPC were all at the background radiation level, irrespective of procedure and fluoroscopy duration and of radiation energy delivered. In addition, the RPC was protecting the entire body (except the hands), whereas lead apron protection is incomplete. Also with the more sensitive EPDs, the radiation dose within the RPC was at the sensitivity threshold/background level (1.3+/-0.6 microSv). Again, radiation to the head was significantly lower within the RPC (1.9+/-1.2 microSv) than with the apron (102+/-23 microSv, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of the RPC allows performing catheter ablation procedures without compromising catheter manipulation, and with negligible radiation exposure for the operator.