Literature DB >> 15128995

Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phosphor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details.

Martin Uffmann1, Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop, Ulrich Neitzel, Michael Weber, Christian J Herold, Mathias Prokop.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare exposure requirements for similar detection performance with flat-panel detectors and the most recent generation of storage-phosphor plates in the simulated scatter of typical skeletal radiographic examinations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A contrast-detail test object was covered with varying thicknesses of acrylic to simulate skeletal exposure conditions in the wrist, knee, and pelvis. Three series were obtained with increasing thicknesses of a simulated soft-tissue layer (5, 10, and 20 cm) and increasing tube voltage (50, 70, and 90 kVp). A fourth series was obtained with exposure conditions adapted to the phantom instructions (75 kVp). Images were acquired with a flat-panel detector (cesium iodide scintillator) and storage-phosphor plates at five exposure levels (speed class range, 100-1,600). Five readers evaluated 84 images to determine the threshold contrast of 12 lesion diameters (range, 0.25-11.1 mm). Statistical significance of differences between the two digital systems was assessed with two-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS: A linear relationship was found between the number of detected lesions and the logarithm of exposure (R(2) > 0.98 for all series). On average, the flat-panel system required 45% less exposure than did the phosphor plates when 20-cm-thick acrylic was superimposed on the test object. Differences in exposure requirements were smaller with decreasing thicknesses of simulated soft-tissue layers and lower tube voltages (39% at 10 cm and 70 kVp, and 17% at 5 cm and 50 kVp). All differences were statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Flat-panel radiography provides improved contrast detectability and a potential for exposure reduction compared with those with storage-phosphor radiography. The best performance was achieved with conditions comparable to those for radiography of the trunk and lowest for conditions that simulate radiography of the extremities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15128995     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2312021662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  5 in total

1.  Digital radiography: optimization of image quality and dose using multi-frequency software.

Authors:  H Precht; O Gerke; K Rosendahl; A Tingberg; D Waaler
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2012-04-17

2.  Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  [Austrian expert opinion on the standard for expert assessment of course of illness in patients with chronic polyarthritis (rheumatoid arthritis)].

Authors:  Klaus P Machold; Hans Peter Brezinsek; Burkhard F Leeb; Stephan Pflugbeil; Franz Rainer; Franz Singer; Martin Skoumal; Tanja A Stamm; Manfred Herold
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.704

4.  Image quality and dose differences caused by vendor-specific image processing of neonatal radiographs.

Authors:  William F Sensakovic; M Cody O'Dell; Haley Letter; Nathan Kohler; Baiywo Rop; Jane Cook; Gregory Logsdon; Laura Varich
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-08-03

5.  Evaluation of Non-Uniform Image Quality Caused by Anode Heel Effect in Digital Radiography Using Mutual Information.

Authors:  Ming-Chung Chou
Journal:  Entropy (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-25       Impact factor: 2.524

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.