Literature DB >> 11511898

Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs. screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics.

S Hamers1, J Freyschmidt, U Neitzel.   

Abstract

The imaging performance of a recently developed digital flat-panel detector system was compared with conventional screen-film imaging in an observer preference study. In total, 34 image pairs of various regions of the skeleton were obtained in 24 patients; 30 image pairs were included in the study. The conventional images were acquired with 250- and 400-speed screen-film combinations, using the standard technique of our department. Within hours, the digital images were obtained using identical exposure parameters. The digital system employed a large-area (43x43 cm) flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon (Trixell Pixium 4600), integrated in a Bucky table. Six radiologists independently evaluated the image pairs with respect to image latitude, soft tissue rendition, rendition of the periosteal and enosteal border of cortical bone, rendition of cancellous bone and the visibility of potentially present pathological changes, using a subjective five-point scale. The digital images were rated significantly (p=0.001) better than the screen-film images with respect to soft tissue rendition and image latitude. Also the rendition of the cancellous bone and the periosteal and enosteal border of the cortical bone was rated significantly (p=0.05) better for the flat-panel detector. The visibility of pathological lesions was equivalent; only large-area sclerotic lesions (n=2) were seen superiorly on screen-film images. The new digital flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon appears to be at least equivalent to conventional screen-film combinations for skeletal examinations, and in most respects even superior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11511898     DOI: 10.1007/s003300100830

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  8 in total

1.  Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.

Authors:  Karl Ludwig; Andreas Henschel; Thomas M Bernhardt; Horst Lenzen; Dag Wormanns; Stefan Diederich; Walter Heindel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-11-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Dose reduction in skeletal and chest radiography using a large-area flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon and thallium-doped cesium iodide: technical background, basic image quality parameters, and review of the literature.

Authors:  Markus Völk; Okka W Hamer; Stefan Feuerbach; Michael Strotzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Are digital images good enough? A comparative study of conventional film-screen vs digital radiographs on printed images of total hip replacement.

Authors:  K Eklund; K Jonsson; G Lindblom; B Lundin; J Sanfridsson; M Sloth; B Sivberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-11-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  [Improvements in detection of rectal cancer recurrence by multiplanar reconstruction].

Authors:  C A Stückle; K F Haegele; M Jendreck; R Kickuth; O Schneider; G Hohlbach; D Liermann
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Flat detectors and their clinical applications.

Authors:  Martin Spahn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-04-02       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Quality-controlled dose reduction of full-leg radiography in patients with knee malalignment.

Authors:  Jost Karsten Kloth; Regina Neumann; Eva von Stillfried; Wolfram Stiller; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Volker Ewerbeck; Marc-André Weber
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images.

Authors:  Mitchell M Goodsitt; Heang-Ping Chan; Andrea Schmitz; Scott Zelakiewicz; Santosh Telang; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Kuanwong Watcharotone; Mark A Helvie; Chintana Paramagul; Colleen Neal; Emmanuel Christodoulou; Sandra C Larson; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Modification of chest radiography exposure parameters using a neonatal chest phantom.

Authors:  Stefan B Schäfer; Sabine Papst; Martin Fiebich; Claudia Rudolph; Jan de Laffolie; Gabriele A Krombach
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-10-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.