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

Thomas Adejoh¹, Sobechukwu Warric Iwene Onwuzu², Flavious Bobuin Nkubli³, Nwamaka Ikegwuonu¹

¹Radiology Department, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Nigeria.
²Medical Imaging Unit, Department of Medical Centre, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
³Department of Medical Radiography, College of Medical Sciences, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria.

DOI: 10.4236/ojrad.2014.43036                

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.

Keywords

Marker, Radiation Field, Radiographs, Radiographers

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