Cargando…

RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface

The purpose of this study was to introduce and describe the development of RadShield, a Java‐based graphical user interface (GUI), which provides a base design that uniquely performs thorough, spatially distributed calculations at many points and reports the maximum air‐kerma rate and barrier thickn...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: DeLorenzo, Matthew C., Wu, Dee H., Yang, Kai, Rutel, Isaac B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6287
_version_ 1783310100548550656
author DeLorenzo, Matthew C.
Wu, Dee H.
Yang, Kai
Rutel, Isaac B.
author_facet DeLorenzo, Matthew C.
Wu, Dee H.
Yang, Kai
Rutel, Isaac B.
author_sort DeLorenzo, Matthew C.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to introduce and describe the development of RadShield, a Java‐based graphical user interface (GUI), which provides a base design that uniquely performs thorough, spatially distributed calculations at many points and reports the maximum air‐kerma rate and barrier thickness for each barrier pursuant to NCRP Report 147 methodology. Semiautomated shielding design calculations are validated by two approaches: a geometry‐based approach and a manual approach. A series of geometry‐based equations were derived giving the maximum air‐kerma rate magnitude and location through a first derivative root finding approach. The second approach consisted of comparing RadShield results with those found by manual shielding design by an American Board of Radiology (ABR)‐certified medical physicist for two clinical room situations: two adjacent catheterization labs, and a radiographic and fluoroscopic (R&F) exam room. RadShield's efficacy in finding the maximum air‐kerma rate was compared against the geometry‐based approach and the overall shielding recommendations by RadShield were compared against the medical physicist's shielding results. Percentage errors between the geometry‐based approach and RadShield's approach in finding the magnitude and location of the maximum air‐kerma rate was within 0.00124% and 14 mm. RadShield's barrier thickness calculations were found to be within 0.156 mm lead (Pb) and 0.150 mm lead (Pb) for the adjacent catheterization labs and R&F room examples, respectively. However, within the R&F room example, differences in locating the most sensitive calculation point on the floor plan for one of the barriers was not considered in the medical physicist's calculation and was revealed by the RadShield calculations. RadShield is shown to accurately find the maximum values of air‐kerma rate and barrier thickness using NCRP Report 147 methodology. Visual inspection alone of the 2D X‐ray exam distribution by a medical physicist may not be sufficient to accurately select the point of maximum air‐kerma rate or barrier thickness. PACS number(s): 87.55.N, 87.52.‐g, 87.59.Bh, 87.57.‐s
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5874083
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58740832018-04-02 RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface DeLorenzo, Matthew C. Wu, Dee H. Yang, Kai Rutel, Isaac B. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Protection & Regulations The purpose of this study was to introduce and describe the development of RadShield, a Java‐based graphical user interface (GUI), which provides a base design that uniquely performs thorough, spatially distributed calculations at many points and reports the maximum air‐kerma rate and barrier thickness for each barrier pursuant to NCRP Report 147 methodology. Semiautomated shielding design calculations are validated by two approaches: a geometry‐based approach and a manual approach. A series of geometry‐based equations were derived giving the maximum air‐kerma rate magnitude and location through a first derivative root finding approach. The second approach consisted of comparing RadShield results with those found by manual shielding design by an American Board of Radiology (ABR)‐certified medical physicist for two clinical room situations: two adjacent catheterization labs, and a radiographic and fluoroscopic (R&F) exam room. RadShield's efficacy in finding the maximum air‐kerma rate was compared against the geometry‐based approach and the overall shielding recommendations by RadShield were compared against the medical physicist's shielding results. Percentage errors between the geometry‐based approach and RadShield's approach in finding the magnitude and location of the maximum air‐kerma rate was within 0.00124% and 14 mm. RadShield's barrier thickness calculations were found to be within 0.156 mm lead (Pb) and 0.150 mm lead (Pb) for the adjacent catheterization labs and R&F room examples, respectively. However, within the R&F room example, differences in locating the most sensitive calculation point on the floor plan for one of the barriers was not considered in the medical physicist's calculation and was revealed by the RadShield calculations. RadShield is shown to accurately find the maximum values of air‐kerma rate and barrier thickness using NCRP Report 147 methodology. Visual inspection alone of the 2D X‐ray exam distribution by a medical physicist may not be sufficient to accurately select the point of maximum air‐kerma rate or barrier thickness. PACS number(s): 87.55.N, 87.52.‐g, 87.59.Bh, 87.57.‐s John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5874083/ /pubmed/27685128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6287 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Protection & Regulations
DeLorenzo, Matthew C.
Wu, Dee H.
Yang, Kai
Rutel, Isaac B.
RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface
title RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface
title_full RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface
title_fullStr RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface
title_full_unstemmed RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface
title_short RadShield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface
title_sort radshield: semiautomated shielding design using a floor plan driven graphical user interface
topic Radiation Protection & Regulations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6287
work_keys_str_mv AT delorenzomatthewc radshieldsemiautomatedshieldingdesignusingafloorplandrivengraphicaluserinterface
AT wudeeh radshieldsemiautomatedshieldingdesignusingafloorplandrivengraphicaluserinterface
AT yangkai radshieldsemiautomatedshieldingdesignusingafloorplandrivengraphicaluserinterface
AT rutelisaacb radshieldsemiautomatedshieldingdesignusingafloorplandrivengraphicaluserinterface