Radiation Field Preference for Radiographic Anatomical Markers by Radiographers in a University Teaching Hospital in Nigeria

DOI: 10.4236/ojrad.2014.43036   PDF   HTML     3,166 Downloads   4,059 Views   Citations

Abstract

Objective: The work aims to determine the radiographers’ preference between primary and secondary radiation fields for imprinting anatomical markers on radiographs. Methodology: Processed radiographs from the darkroom with evidence of radiographic anatomical markings were selected randomly and reviewed using a viewing box, within a 4-week period. The radiation field in which markers were placed was noted for each radiograph. Faintly-appearing and partly coned- off markers were excluded. Simple statistical tools were used to derive central tendency. Result: 623 radiographs were assessed. 89.0% (n = 555) had markers in the primary radiation field while 11.0% (n = 68) were in the secondary radiation field. 98% (n = 611) of markers did not obstruct essential anatomy while 2% (n = 12) did, but the radiographs were neither repeated nor rejected because of the twin reason of reportability and the need to avoid additional radiation dose to patients. Conclusion: Radiographers in the centre preferred the primary radiation field for marker placement to avoid cone-off, cut-off and illegibility which leads to repeat. This, however, does not offer superior advantage to markers placed in secondary radiation field. It is recommended that marker placement preference should be guided by the need for legibility, aesthetics and avoidance of essential anatomy.

Share and Cite:

Adejoh, T. , Onwuzu, S. , Nkubli, F. and Ikegwuonu, N. (2014) Radiation Field Preference for Radiographic Anatomical Markers by Radiographers in a University Teaching Hospital in Nigeria. Open Journal of Radiology, 4, 275-278. doi: 10.4236/ojrad.2014.43036.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Aakre, K.T. and Johnson, C.D. (2006) Plain-Radiographic Image Labeling: A Process to Improve Clinical Outcomes. Journal of American College of Radiologists, 3, 949-953.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2006.07.005
[2] Davis, M. and Reeves, P. (2004) Maintaining the Chain of Evidence in Child Abuse Cases. Journal of Diagnostic Radiology Imaging, 5, 61-68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1460472804000021
[3] Fabian, C.E. (2005) Knowing Right from Left on X-Rays: A Way to Minimize Errors of Laterality. Applied Radiology, 34, 19-22.
[4] Bontrager, K.L. and Lampignano, J.P. (2010) Textbook of Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomy. 7th Edition, Mosby Elsevier, Maryland Heights, 30.
[5] Platt, J.M. and Strudwick, R.M. (2009) The Application of Anatomical Side Markers during Abdominal and IVU Examinations: An Investigation of Practice Prior to and Post-Installation of Computed Radiography (CR). Radiography, 15, 292-299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2008.11.006

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.