Objective: To investigate whether electronic collimation software, which is available in all digital X-ray systems, may comprise an overexposure risk.
Methods: In the context of surveys on Diagnostic Reference Levels carried out in two radiographic facilities, along with data on exposure factors, the radiographic field sizes were also recorded. In one facility (Unit A), a wireless flat panel detector is used with a conventional X-ray unit, while in the other, a fully digital system is installed (Unit B). The electronically collimated image sizes were compared with the original radiation field sizes. The differences between these two systems concerning the field sizes and the mode of electronic collimation utilization were investigated.
Results: In Unit A, manual electronic collimation was extensively used and cases where the radiation field size was up to three times larger than that electronically collimated, were identified. On the contrary, in Unit B radiation fields were smaller and electronic collimation was automatic.
Conclusion: When electronic collimation is used in manual mode instead of proper pre-exposure collimation, then it does comprise an overexposure risk. The risk is larger in radiographic units where the field size is not automatically selected according to the examination protocol and no interlocks against oversized collimation settings exist. Advances in knowledge: When radiologists review masked images to make the diagnosis, possible suboptimal X-ray field collimation practices may go unnoticed for long. Therefore, radiologists and medical physicists should periodically survey the original images to determine the actual radiation field sizes used for each radiographic examination type.