PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology the i. v. urograms of patients who had been examined with computed radiography and digital flat-panel radiography were compared regarding image quality. METHODS: 50 patients who underwent clinically indicated i. v. urography were examined with digital flat-panel radiography and computed radiography. In order to avoid unnecessary double exposure to X-rays, patients were examined either by flat-panel or computed radiography before injection of contrast media. Each further clinically indicated exposure after administration of contrast media was done by alternating the other examination technique. The digital images were compared by 4 radiologists regarding image quality for the detection of defined anatomic structures. RESULTS: Digital flat-panel radiography showed an image quality of the liver, spleen and both kidneys that was similar to computed radiography. The urinary tract, lumbar spine, pelvis and psoas muscle were significantly better visible on flat-panel radiography images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to computed radiography there is no loss of image information by using digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology. On the contrary, some anatomic structures on abdominal survey images show better image quality. In conclusion, digital flat-panel radiography has the potential to replace computed radiography in uroradiologic examinations.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology the i. v. urograms of patients who had been examined with computed radiography and digital flat-panel radiography were compared regarding image quality. METHODS: 50 patients who underwent clinically indicated i. v. urography were examined with digital flat-panel radiography and computed radiography. In order to avoid unnecessary double exposure to X-rays, patients were examined either by flat-panel or computed radiography before injection of contrast media. Each further clinically indicated exposure after administration of contrast media was done by alternating the other examination technique. The digital images were compared by 4 radiologists regarding image quality for the detection of defined anatomic structures. RESULTS: Digital flat-panel radiography showed an image quality of the liver, spleen and both kidneys that was similar to computed radiography. The urinary tract, lumbar spine, pelvis and psoas muscle were significantly better visible on flat-panel radiography images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to computed radiography there is no loss of image information by using digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology. On the contrary, some anatomic structures on abdominal survey images show better image quality. In conclusion, digital flat-panel radiography has the potential to replace computed radiography in uroradiologic examinations.