OBJECTIVE: To compare the slot-scan digital radiography (SSDR) of the lower extremity region and the computed radiography (CR) method with respect to the image quality and radiation exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 54 patients who underwent both the SSDR and CR of the lower extremities. The study evaluated and statistically compared the image quality of four features (outer cortex, inner cortex, trabeculae and intermuscular fat) at six different levels (pelvis, hip, femur, knee, tibia and ankle) between each method. The image quality was evaluated using a visibility scale, and the entrance skin dose was measured using a dosimeter at three different levels of a phantom (hip, knee, and ankle). RESULTS: The mean image visibility scale values for the SSDR method were significantly higher than for the CR method. The entrance skin dose for the SSDR method was 278 microGy at each level, compared to the entrance skin doses of the CR method, which were 3,410 microGy for the hip, 1,152 microGy for the knee, and 580 microGy for the ankle. CONCLUSION: Both the image quality and patient entrance skin dose data suggest that the SSDR method is superior to the CR method for the lower extremity musculoskeletal examination.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the slot-scan digital radiography (SSDR) of the lower extremity region and the computed radiography (CR) method with respect to the image quality and radiation exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 54 patients who underwent both the SSDR and CR of the lower extremities. The study evaluated and statistically compared the image quality of four features (outer cortex, inner cortex, trabeculae and intermuscular fat) at six different levels (pelvis, hip, femur, knee, tibia and ankle) between each method. The image quality was evaluated using a visibility scale, and the entrance skin dose was measured using a dosimeter at three different levels of a phantom (hip, knee, and ankle). RESULTS: The mean image visibility scale values for the SSDR method were significantly higher than for the CR method. The entrance skin dose for the SSDR method was 278 microGy at each level, compared to the entrance skin doses of the CR method, which were 3,410 microGy for the hip, 1,152 microGy for the knee, and 580 microGy for the ankle. CONCLUSION: Both the image quality and patient entrance skin dose data suggest that the SSDR method is superior to the CR method for the lower extremity musculoskeletal examination.
Authors: Karl Ludwig; Kathrin Ahlers; Dag Wormanns; Michael Freund; Thomas M Bernhardt; Stefan Diederich; Walter Heindel Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-08-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Zähringer; B Krug; K F Kamm; G Wassmer; M Hellmich; G Winnekendonk; J Andermahr; A Gossmann; K J Lackner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: D W Piraino; W J Davros; M Lieber; B J Richmond; J P Schils; M P Recht; P N Grooff; G H Belhobek Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lucia J M Kroft; Jacob Geleijns; Bart J A Mertens; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Harmine M Zonderland; Albert de Roos Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 11.105