Absorbed organ doses in computed tomography using personal radiation protective equipment: a phantom study of a five-year-old child

   Despite international recommendations, some medical organizations continue the practice of using protective aprons, including for children. Existing calculation methods do not allow for the assessment of absorbed doses when using an apron, which makes direct dosimetric research relevant.

   Materials and Methods: The study was performed using a phantom of a 5-year-old child with thermoluminescent detectors. Chest scanning was conducted on a Somatom Force tomograph (Siemens, Germany, manufactured in 2022) with three apron use options: without an apron; with an apron wrapped around the phantom; and with an apron used as a blanket. Two scanning parameter sets were used: 1) fixed voltage of 70 kV with tube current modulation; 2) fully automatic mode.

   Results and Discussion: Wrapping the apron resulted in both dose reduction in some radiosensitive organs and dose increase in others by a factor of 3–8. Using the apron as a blanket led to a substantial dose increase for the majority of radiosensitive organs and tissues, including organs fully or partially covered by the apron (3–15 times). In organs partially covered by the apron, dose changes depending on the PPE use case were most pronounced: in automatic scanning modes, when using the apron wrapped around the phantom, doses in these organs increased by a factor of 1.1–4.2 compared to doses in the same organs without protective apron; when using the apron as a blanket, doses in organs partially covered by the apron increased by a factor of 4.5–8.5.

   Conclusion: The use of an apron during computed tomography reduces doses in some organs but is accompanied by a significant (up to 15 times or more) increase in doses in others, especially in automatic modes.

1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP recommendations for ending routine gonadal shielding during abdominal and pelvic radiography. 2021; 120 р.

2. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Patient gonadal and fetal shielding in diagnostic imaging frequently asked questions; 2019. 8 p. Available from: https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/documents/CARES_FAQs_Patient_Shielding.pdf [Accessed 15. 04. 2026].

3. Stearns BK, Seitz K, Folck QM. Exploring past to present shielding guidelines. Radiological Physics and Technology. 2023;95(2): 84-93.

4. Shatsky IG, Druzhinina PS, Chipiga LA, Alekseeva DS. Evaluation of the impact of personal protective equipment on the automatic exposure control system in computed tomography. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2026;19(1): 69–80. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2026-19-1-69-80.

5. Begano D, Söderberg M, Bolejko A. To use or not use patient shielding on pregnant women undergoing CT pulmonary angiography: a phantom study. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2020;189(4): 458-465. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncaa059.

6. Samara ET, Saltybaeva N, Sans Merce M, Gianolini S, Ith M. Systematic literature review on the benefit of patient protection shielding during medical X-ray imaging: towards a discontinuation of the current practice. Physica Medica. 2022;94: 102-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.12.016.

7. Geist JR. This far but no farther: elimination of protective radiation shielding for dental patients. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2020;130(4): 347-349. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.05.016.

8. Kim J-S, Kwon S-M, Kim J-M, Yoon S-W. New organ-based tube current modulation method to reduce the radiation dose during computed tomography of the head: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose to the eyes in the phantom study. Radiologia Medica. 2017;122(8): 601-608. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-0170755-5.

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. Boyle H, Strudwick RM. Do lead rubber aprons pose an infection risk? Radiography. 2010;16(4): 297-303. DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2010.03.002

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

12. 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).

13. State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom. Centrotech-Engineering LLC. Thermoluminescent single-crystal detectors DTG-4. Passport according to Technical Specifications TU 95 2511-94. 2025. 13 p. (In Russian).

14. State System for Ensuring the Uniformity of Measurements. Thermoluminescent Dosimetric Complexes "DOZA-TLD". Verification Method FVKM.412118.010MP. 2018. 11 p. (In Russian).

15. Bassi P, Busuoli G, Rimondi O. Calculated energy dependence of some RTL and RPL detectors. The International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 1976;27(5–6): 291–305. DOI: 10.1016/0020-708X(76)90146-0.

16. Chipiga L, Golikov V, Vodovatov A, Bernhardsson C. Comparison of organ absorbed doses in whole-body computed tomography scans of paediatric and adult patient models estimated by different methods. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2021;195(3-4): 246-256. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncab086. PMID: 34132330.