Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Leeming, B. W.
Right arrow Articles by Locke, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Leeming, B. W.
Right arrow Articles by Locke, E.

Radiology, Vol 124, 231-234, Copyright © 1977 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

A comparison of fluoroscopically controlled patient positioning and conventional positioning, including comparative dosimetry

BW Leeming, OS Hames, RG Gould and E Locke

The size of the area of exposure on the skin during excretory urography was determined by either technician-controlled fluoroscopy or conventional assessment in 2 comparable groups of patients. The mean skin exposure to radiation per patient was the same in each group. The time required for a urogram was 10% less when fluoroscopy was employed. Since accurate, tightly shuttered exposure areas improve radiographic quality, fluoroscopically controlled determination of patient positioning is justified.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1977 by the Radiological Society of North America.