Evaluation of the impact of personal protective equipment on the automatic exposure control system in computed tomography

I. G. Shatsky; P. S. Druzhinina; L. A. Chipiga; D. V. Alekseeva

doi:10.21514/1998-426X-2026-19-1-69-80

Evaluation of the impact of personal protective equipment on the automatic exposure control system in computed tomography

I. G. Shatsky, P. S. Druzhinina, L. A. Chipiga, D. V. Alekseeva

https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2026-19-1-69-80

Full Text:

PDF (Rus)

Generate QR code

Abstract

The relevance of this study lies in the need to reconsider established approaches to the use of personal protective equipment in computed tomography due to the widespread implementation of automatic tube current and voltage modulation algorithms. Since PPE can distort the input data for these algorithms, their use may not only fail to reduce but could also unjustifiably increase the patient's radiation dose, which requires detailed experimental verification, especially in pediatric practice where patients are most sensitive to ionizing radiation.

The aim of this work is to assess the influence of personal protective equipment on the performance of the automatic tube current and voltage modulation programs (CareDose 4D and Care kV) during CT examinations on a Somatom Force (Siemens) scanner, using an anthropomorphic phantom of a five-year-old child.

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted at the CT department of the Almazov National Medical Research Centre using an anthropomorphic phantom of a five-year-old child and a technically sound Somatom Force (Siemens) tomograph. To assess the impact of personal protective equipment on the operation of the automatic current and voltage modulation programs (CareDose 4D and Care kV), a series of phantom scans was performed with and without various positioning options for a protective lead apron, simulating real clinical practice.

Results and Discussion: The results showed that when a lead apron enters the topogram area, the system interprets this as an increase in the patient's body size and density, which automatically increases the radiation parameters compared to a scan performed without the lead apron.

Conclusion: Evaluating the impact of this effect on absorbed and effective doses requires further research to determine the appropriateness of using personal protective equipment in computed tomography.

Keywords

computed tomography, patient, radiation protection, personal protective equipment, protective apron, tube current modulation

About the Authors

I. G. Shatsky

Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing
Russian Federation

Ilya G. Shatsky – Research Fellow, Laboratory of Radiation Hygiene of Medical Facilities, Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev.

8, Mira Str., Saint Petersburg, 197101

P. S. Druzhinina

Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing
Russian Federation

Polina S. Druzhinina – Junior Research Fellow, Laboratory of Radiation Hygiene of Medical Facilities, Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev.

Saint Petersburg

L. A. Chipiga

Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing; A.M. Granov Russian Scientific Center of Radiology and Surgical Technologies of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Almazov National Medical Research Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation

Larisa A. Chipiga – Candidate of Engineering Sciences, Research Fellow, Laboratory of Radiation Hygiene of Medical Facilities, Saint Petersburg RI RH after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing; Research Fellow, A.M. Granov RSC of Radiology and Surgical Technologies of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Docent, Almazov NMRC MH RF.

Saint Petersburg

D. V. Alekseeva

Almazov National Medical Research Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation

Darya V. Alekseeva Radiologist, Head of the Department of Medical Diagnostics No. 1 at the University Clinic, Assistant at the Department of Radiation Diagnostics and Medical Imaging.

Saint Petersburg

References

1. Stearns BK, Seitz K, Folck QM. Exploring Past to Present Shielding Guidelines. Radiological Physics and Technology. 2023;95(2): 84-93.

2. Marsh RM, Silosky M. Patient shielding in diagnostic imaging: discontinuing a legacy practice. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212(4): 755-757. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20508.

3. Khong PL, Ringertz H, Donoghue V, Frush D, Rehani M, Appelgate K, et al. ICRP publication 121: radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. Annals of the ICRP. 2013;42(2): 1-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.10.001.

4. Sullivan Y, Benson E, Hickson G, Helen H, Phil C, Robert L, et al. Guidance on using shielding on patients for diagnostic radiology applications. 2020. 87 p.

5. PS 8-A. AAPM Position Statement on the Use of Patient Gonadal and Fetal Shielding. [Online resource] URL: https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?type=PP&id=2552 (Accessed: 24.02.2026).

6. Hiles P. Using patient shielding What is the risk? British Journal of Radiology. 2021;94(1126): 20210701. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210701.

7. McKenney S, Gingold E, Zaidi H. Gonadal shielding should be discontinued for most diagnostic imaging exams. Medical Physics. 2019;46(3): 1111-1114. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13409.

8. Lawrence S, Seeram E. The Current Use and Effectiveness of Bismuth Shielding in Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review. Radiology. Open Journal. 2017;2: 7-16. DOI: 10.17140/ROJ-2-113.

9. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Vrieze TJ, McCollough CH. Lead Shielding in Pediatric Chest CT: Effect of Apron Placement Outside the Scan Volume on Radiation Dose Reduction. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212(1): 151-156. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19405.

10. Söderberg M. Overview, practical tips and potential pitfalls of using automatic exposure control in CT: Siemens Care Dose 4D. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2016;169(1-4): 84-91. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncv459.

11. Chipiga LA. Evaluation of tube current modulation programms for the optimization of scan protocols in computed tomography. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2019;12(1): 104-114. (DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-1-104-114) (In Russian).

12. Olympic Health Physics. How Does CARE Dose4D Work? [Online resource] URL: https://www.olympichp.com/howdoes-care-dose4d-work/ (Accessed: 24.02.2026).

13. Varchena V. Pediatric phantoms. Pediatric Radiology Journal. 2002;32: 280–284.

14. Varchenya VZh, Voevodina AI, Gubatova DYa, Krastynia AK, Nemiro EA, Kalnitsky SA et al. Tissue-equivalent dosimetric phantoms and measurement of absorbed doses by organs in radiological examinations of children. Riga, Latvia; 1989. 93 p. (In Russian).

15. Marcus S, Sonny L. Evaluation of adaptation strengths of CARE Dose 4D in pediatric CT. Medical Imaging 2013: Physics of Medical Imaging. 2013: 866833 DOI: 10.1117/12.2001694.

Review

For citations:

Shatsky I.G., Druzhinina P.S., Chipiga L.A., Alekseeva D.V. Evaluation of the impact of personal protective equipment on the automatic exposure control system in computed tomography. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2026;19(1):72-83. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2026-19-1-69-80

JATS XML