Radiation dose and shielding considerations for digital dynamic radiography (DDR) compared to mobile C-arms

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Azmul Siddique, Gary Ge, Jie Zhang
{"title":"Radiation dose and shielding considerations for digital dynamic radiography (DDR) compared to mobile C-arms","authors":"Azmul Siddique,&nbsp;Gary Ge,&nbsp;Jie Zhang","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Digital dynamic radiography (DDR), integrated into Konica Minolta's portable mKDR system, provides dynamic imaging for pulmonary, orthopedic, and interventional applications. While DDR is not classified as fluoroscopy, its use of pulsed x-rays for cine-like image sequences raises concerns about radiation exposure and shielding, particularly given the absence of a primary beam stop, high output capabilities, and increasing clinical adoption.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To characterize the primary and scatter radiation output of a DDR system and compare it against commonly used mobile C-arm fluoroscopy units, and to evaluate shielding requirements and potential occupational exposure risks associated with DDR use.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Radiation dose output and scatter were assessed for a Konica Minolta mKDR system and three mobile C-arms: GE OEC Elite, Siemens Cios Spin, and Ziehm Vision RFD 3D. Unshielded primary air kerma was measured at 100 cm SID using matched dose settings (low, medium, high). Scatter fraction and normalized scatter were measured at eight angles and three distances using a 20 cm PMMA phantom and an ion chamber. Additional direct comparisons of angular scatter doses between DDR and a GE C-arm were made during 20-s acquisitions at varying distances. The Klein–Nishina differential cross section was also calculated for photon energies representative of clinical settings. Leakage radiation and image receptor attenuation were quantified. Shielding requirements were estimated using NCRP 147 methodology under varying workload and occupancy conditions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>DDR exhibited dose rates two to three times higher than C-arms at medium and high dose settings, with longer pulse widths (16 ms) producing greater exposure than shorter ones (5 ms). Scatter fraction peaked at 165° and increased with lower beam energy due to energy-dependent Compton interactions and reduced filtration. Compared to the GE C-arm, DDR produced consistently higher scatter values at all angular positions. Measured scatter doses at 0.3 m and 1.0 m from the phantom exceeded those from the C-arm, especially in the forward direction (0°). Image receptor attenuation measurements showed 98% beam reduction when the receptor was properly aligned. Leakage was minimal and well below FDA limits. Shielding assessments indicated that concrete thickness requirements for DDR could reach 145 mm under worst-case conditions, driven primarily by the high primary beam output rather than scatter or leakage.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>DDR systems provide portable dynamic imaging capabilities but deliver substantially higher radiation output than conventional mobile C-arms. In addition, scatter dose rates from DDR were approximately 1.5–3 times higher than those from a conventional mobile C-arm under comparable conditions. This elevated dose, driven by high tube currents and long pulse durations, raises important safety concerns for patients, personnel, and shielding infrastructure. While DDR offers potential clinical value in motion-sensitive applications, its safe integration into practice requires careful protocol selection, attention to scatter exposure, and thoughtful shielding planning of exam rooms where the system will be used. As DDR systems become more prevalent and approach fluoroscopic performance, regulatory and design guidance may need to evolve to reflect their unique operational profile.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70256","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Digital dynamic radiography (DDR), integrated into Konica Minolta's portable mKDR system, provides dynamic imaging for pulmonary, orthopedic, and interventional applications. While DDR is not classified as fluoroscopy, its use of pulsed x-rays for cine-like image sequences raises concerns about radiation exposure and shielding, particularly given the absence of a primary beam stop, high output capabilities, and increasing clinical adoption.

Purpose

To characterize the primary and scatter radiation output of a DDR system and compare it against commonly used mobile C-arm fluoroscopy units, and to evaluate shielding requirements and potential occupational exposure risks associated with DDR use.

Methods

Radiation dose output and scatter were assessed for a Konica Minolta mKDR system and three mobile C-arms: GE OEC Elite, Siemens Cios Spin, and Ziehm Vision RFD 3D. Unshielded primary air kerma was measured at 100 cm SID using matched dose settings (low, medium, high). Scatter fraction and normalized scatter were measured at eight angles and three distances using a 20 cm PMMA phantom and an ion chamber. Additional direct comparisons of angular scatter doses between DDR and a GE C-arm were made during 20-s acquisitions at varying distances. The Klein–Nishina differential cross section was also calculated for photon energies representative of clinical settings. Leakage radiation and image receptor attenuation were quantified. Shielding requirements were estimated using NCRP 147 methodology under varying workload and occupancy conditions.

Results

DDR exhibited dose rates two to three times higher than C-arms at medium and high dose settings, with longer pulse widths (16 ms) producing greater exposure than shorter ones (5 ms). Scatter fraction peaked at 165° and increased with lower beam energy due to energy-dependent Compton interactions and reduced filtration. Compared to the GE C-arm, DDR produced consistently higher scatter values at all angular positions. Measured scatter doses at 0.3 m and 1.0 m from the phantom exceeded those from the C-arm, especially in the forward direction (0°). Image receptor attenuation measurements showed 98% beam reduction when the receptor was properly aligned. Leakage was minimal and well below FDA limits. Shielding assessments indicated that concrete thickness requirements for DDR could reach 145 mm under worst-case conditions, driven primarily by the high primary beam output rather than scatter or leakage.

Conclusions

DDR systems provide portable dynamic imaging capabilities but deliver substantially higher radiation output than conventional mobile C-arms. In addition, scatter dose rates from DDR were approximately 1.5–3 times higher than those from a conventional mobile C-arm under comparable conditions. This elevated dose, driven by high tube currents and long pulse durations, raises important safety concerns for patients, personnel, and shielding infrastructure. While DDR offers potential clinical value in motion-sensitive applications, its safe integration into practice requires careful protocol selection, attention to scatter exposure, and thoughtful shielding planning of exam rooms where the system will be used. As DDR systems become more prevalent and approach fluoroscopic performance, regulatory and design guidance may need to evolve to reflect their unique operational profile.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

与移动c臂相比,数字动态放射照相(DDR)的辐射剂量和屏蔽考虑
数字动态放射成像(DDR)集成到柯尼卡美能达的便携式mKDR系统中,为肺部、骨科和介入性应用提供动态成像。虽然DDR不属于透视检查,但它使用脉冲x射线进行类似电影的图像序列引起了对辐射暴露和屏蔽的担忧,特别是考虑到没有主光束停止,高输出能力和越来越多的临床采用。目的表征DDR系统的主辐射和散射辐射输出,并将其与常用的移动c臂透视装置进行比较,并评估与DDR使用相关的屏蔽要求和潜在的职业暴露风险。方法对柯尼卡美能达mKDR系统和GE OEC Elite、Siemens Cios Spin、Ziehm Vision RFD 3D三个移动c型臂进行辐射剂量输出和散射评估。使用匹配的剂量设置(低、中、高)在100 cm SID处测量无屏蔽的一次风量。使用20 cm PMMA模体和离子室在8个角度和3个距离上测量散射分数和归一化散射。在不同距离的20-s采集期间,DDR和GE c臂之间的角散射剂量进行了额外的直接比较。Klein-Nishina微分截面也计算了代表临床环境的光子能量。对泄漏辐射和图像受体衰减进行量化。在不同的工作负荷和占用条件下,使用NCRP 147方法估计屏蔽需求。结果在中、高剂量条件下,DDR的剂量率比c臂高2 ~ 3倍,较长的脉冲宽度(16 ms)比较短的脉冲宽度(5 ms)产生更大的暴露。散射分数在165°处达到峰值,由于能量依赖的康普顿相互作用和过滤减少,散射分数随着光束能量的降低而增加。与GE c型臂相比,DDR在所有角度位置都产生了更高的散射值。在距离幻体0.3 m和1.0 m处测量到的散射剂量超过了来自c臂的散射剂量,特别是在正向(0°)。图像受体衰减测量显示,当受体正确排列时,光束减少98%。泄漏是最小的,远远低于FDA的限制。屏蔽评估表明,在最坏情况下,DDR的混凝土厚度要求可达到145 mm,主要是由高主梁输出驱动,而不是散射或泄漏。结论DDR系统提供便携式动态成像能力,但辐射输出比传统的移动c臂高得多。此外,在可比条件下,DDR的散射剂量率约为传统移动c型臂的1.5-3倍。这种由高管电流和长脉冲持续时间驱动的高剂量引起了对患者、人员和屏蔽基础设施的重要安全问题。虽然DDR在运动敏感应用中具有潜在的临床价值,但将其安全集成到实践中需要仔细选择方案,注意散射暴露,并对使用该系统的检查室进行周到的屏蔽规划。随着DDR系统变得越来越普遍,并接近透视性能,监管和设计指南可能需要发展,以反映其独特的操作概况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信