Open AccessDo radiographers collimate? A retrospective analysis of radiographic collimation of common musculoskeletal examinations at an adult trauma centre
Author(s) -
Ball Sally,
McKerrow Megan,
Murphy Andrew
Publication year - 2023
Publication title -
journal of medical radiation sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.484
H-Index - 18
eISSN - 2051-3909
pISSN - 2051-3895
DOI - 10.1002/jmrs.630
Subject(s) - radiography , collimated light , medicine , digital radiography , computed radiography , image quality , nuclear medicine , radiology , medical physics , optics , computer science , physics , laser , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics)
Collimation of the primary beam is an important factor in radiography to reduce dose and improve image quality. The introduction of larger detector plates in direct digital radiography (DR) allows the exposed area to be calculated by removing cropping applied to the image. The aim of this study was to assess whether the exposed area was larger than a reference standard across five different projections on different body types, with the reference size being the corresponding cassette size used in traditional film/screen or computed radiography (CR). Method A retrospective clinical audit of five common musculoskeletal radiographic projections (AP knee, AP shoulder, horizontal beam lateral hip, lateral cervical spine and lateral facial bones), of 359 patients was undertaken. The electronic cropping was removed from projections, and the superior–inferior, antero‐posterior and medio‐lateral collimation size was measured, depending on the projection. The two measurements were multiplied to give an exposed field of view area. The three measurements were compared with a reference standard, being the size of the corresponding cassette size used in the department on film/screen or computed radiography. Results From the five projections, 1071 measurements were analysed. 416 (38.8%) of these measurements were less than or equal to the agreed reference standard. 655 (61.2%) were greater than the agreed reference standard. Conclusion The study demonstrates that the majority (61.2%) of the measurements taken were above the reference standard. This results in an increase in radiation dose to patients and detrimental impacts on image quality.