Volume : 09, Issue : 10, October – 2022



Authors :

Khaled alqahtani , Hamid Osman , Ahmed Yaqinuddin , Meshari Almanjom , Ibrahim alqahtani , Saif almalki , Khaled alwathnani , Majed Mohammed Alshehri , Mohammed Muyini , Ahmed Alghubayshi

Abstract :

Introduction: CT scan is one of the medical imaging methods that irradiate patients with significant amounts of radiation. These amount of radiation doses must be well estimated if the imaging area is in part containing radiation-sensitive organs such as the pelvic area.
Objectives: the objectives of the current study were to assess radiation dose during pelvis CT imaging and estimate the effective dose as well as to propose diagnostic reference level (DRL).
Methodology: 200 adult patients irradiated in two major governmental hospital in Taif city, Saudi Arabia, patients’ demographic data from was collected such as weight, height, and age. Scanner specifications and scan parameters for each pelvis examination were recorded in special data collection sheet. Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol and dose length product (DLP) were utilized to estimate the radiation dose and effective dose. Microsoft Excel was used to analyse the data.
Main Results: there was variation in scanning parameters among two hospitals under study and this result in variation in effective dose between two hospitals. The average DLP, CTDIvol and effective dose were 368.5, 390.7 mGy-cm,10.2,10.8 mGy and 7, 7.4 mSv for hospital one and two respectively.
Conclusion: Based on the third quartile of DLP and CTDIw, the recommended DRL for both hospitals was 405 mGy-cm and 21.75 mGy, respectively. The findings revealed a reduced effective dose value when compared with previous studies.
Key Word: CT, radiation dose, pelvis, Taif

Cite This Article:

Please cite this article in Khaled alqahtani et al., Optimization Of Radiation Dose And Effective Dose For CT Pelvis Examinations In Two Main Hospitals In Taif Region., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2022; 09(10).


1. Aldrich, J. E., & Williams, J. Change in patient doses from radiological examinations at the Vancouver General Hospital, 1991-2002. Canadian Association of Radiologists journal Journal l’Association canadienne des radiologistes, 2005;56(2), 94–99.
2. Alkadhi H, Euler A. The Future of Computed Tomography: Personalized, Functional, and Precise. Invest Radiol. 2020;55(9):545-555.
3. Bharath AA. Introductory Medical Imaging (Synthesis Lectures on Biomedical Engineering). Morgan and Claypool Publishers (2008).
4. Brix G, Nagel HD, Stamm G, Veit R, Lechel U, Griebel J, Galanski M. Radiation exposure in multi-slice versus single-slice CT: results of a nationwide survey. Eur Radiol. 2003; 13:1979–1991.
5. C Anam, F Haryanto et al.. A fully automated calculation of size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in thoracic and head CT examinations, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 694 (2016) 012030, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/694/1/012030.
6. Christner, J. A., Braun, N. N., et al. (2012). Size-specific dose estimates for adult patients at CT of the torso. Radiology, 2012: 265(3), 841-847.
7. conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 2010:257(1), 158–166.
8. E. C. Nwokorie & S. A. Jonah & M. Y. Onimisi,. “Effective Dose of Computed Tomography (CT) Chest and Abdomen-Pelvis in Some Selected Hospitals in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria,” International Journal of Healthcare and Medical Sciences, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(12), pages 2017:117-123, 12-2017.
9. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann. F, Hadamitzky. M, Krebs. M, Thomas.C. et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009;301:5,500-507.
10. Héliou, R., Normandeau, L., & Beaudoin, G. Towards dose reduction in CT: patient radiation dose assessment for CT examinations at university health center in Canada and comparison with national diagnostic reference levels. Radiation protection dosimetry, 2010:148(2), 202–210.
11. Huda, W., & Vance, A.. Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2007:188(2), 540-546.
12. International commission on radiation protection ICRP publication 102, Managing patient dose in multi-detector computer tomography. Annals of the ICRP, 37, Elsevier Publications, Oxford, UK. 2007.
13. International commission on radiation protection ICRP Publication 60.’, Ann. ICRP. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2004.12.002.
14. Johns, H & Cunningham, JR, The physics of radiology, 4th edition, Charles C Thomas Publisher, Illinos,1983.
15. Mahesh M, Scatarige J, Cooper J, et al. Dose and pitch relationship for a particular multi-slice-CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:1273-5.
16. Papadimitriou D, Perris A, Manetou A. A survey of 14 computed tomography scanners in Greece and 32 scanners in Italy. Examination frequencies, dose reference values, effective doses and doses to organs. Radiat Prot Dosimet 2003:104:47–53.
17. Osman, H., Raafat, B.M., Faizo, N.L., Ahmed, R.M., Alamri, S., Alghamdi, A.J., Almahwasi, A., Alhabi, M.K.M., Sulieman, A., Khandaker, M.U., Exposure levels of CT and conventional X-ray procedures for radiosensitive pelvic organ in Saudi Arabia. J. Rad. Res. Appl. Sci. 2021:14(1):449-455 https://doi.org/10.1080/ 16878507.2021.2002005
18. Rumi Imai & Osamu Miyazaki et al. Local diagnostic reference level based on size-specific dose estimates: Assessment of pediatric abdominal/pelvic computed tomography at a Japanese national children’s hospital. Pediatric Radiol.; 2015:(45):345–353.
19. Sahbaee, P., Segars, W. P. and Samei, E. Patient-based estimation of organ dose for a population of 58 adult patients across 13 protocol categories. Med. Phys. 41,072104 (2014).
20. Shrimpton PC and Wall BF, The increasing importance of X-ray Computed Tomography as a source of medical exposure. Rad. Prot,1995; 57;1:413-415
21. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK 2003 review, NRPB-W67
22. Treier R, Aroua A, Verdun FR, Samara E, Stuessi A, Trueb PR. Patient doses in CT examinations in Switzerland: implementation of national diagnostic reference levels. Radiat Prot Dosi. 2010 142(2-4):244-54.
23. Tsai HY, Tung CJ, Yu CC, Tyan YS. Survey of computed tomography scanners in Taiwan: dose descriptors, dose guidance levels, and effective doses. Med Phys 2007; 34(4):1234–43.
24. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, P. D. ‘Application of European Commission reference dose levels in CT examinations in Crete, Greece.’, Br J Radiol, 2001:74(885), pp. 836–840.
25. Tsapaki V, Tsalafoutas IA, Chinofoti I, Karageorgi A, Carinou E, Kamenopoulou V, Yakoumakis E N, Koulentianos E D. Radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations: a comparison between two methods. Br J Radiol. 2007;80(950):107-112.
26. Vañó, E., Miller, D. L. and Rehani, M. M. (2015) ‘Overview of ICRP Committee 3: protection in medicine’, Annals of the ICRP. doi: 10.1177/0146645315622591.
27. Yates SJ, Pike LC, Goldstone KE. Effect of multislice scanners on patient dose from routine CT examinations in East Anglia. Br J Radiol 2004; 77:472–8