Literature DB >> 23090253

Optimisation of radiological protocols for chest imaging using computed radiography and flat-panel X-ray detectors.

G Compagnone1, M Casadio Baleni, E Di Nicola, M Valentino, M Benati, L F Calzolaio, N Oberhofer, E Fabbri, S Domenichelli, L Barozzi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Digital radiography technology has replaced conventional screen-film systems in many hospitals. Despite the different characteristics of new detector materials, frequently, the same radiological protocols previously optimised for screen film are still used with digital equipment without any critical review. This study addressed optimisation of exposure settings for chest examinations with digital systems, considering both image quality and patient dose.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images acquired with direct digital radiography equipment and a computed radiography system were analysed with specially developed commercial software with a four-alternative forced-choice method: the most promising protocols were then scored by two senior radiologists.
RESULTS: Digital technology offers a wide dynamic range and the ability to postprocess images, allowing use of lower tube potentials in chest examinations. The computed radiography system showed both better image quality and lower dose at lower energies (85 kVp and 95 kVp) than those currently used (125 kVp). Direct digital radiography equipment confirmed both its superior image quality and lower dose requirements compared with the storage phosphor plate system.
CONCLUSIONS: Generally, lowering tube potentials in chest examinations seems to allow better image quality/effective dose ratio when using digital equipment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23090253     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-012-0892-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  30 in total

1.  Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography.

Authors:  J T Dobbins; J J Rice; C A Beam; C E Ravin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology.

Authors:  J M Fernandez; J M Ordiales; E Guibelalde; C Prieto; E Vano
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2008-02-18       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  A method to optimize the processing algorithm of a computed radiography system for chest radiography.

Authors:  C S Moore; G P Liney; A W Beavis; J R Saunderson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2007-08-20       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  X-ray detectors for digital radiography.

Authors:  M J Yaffe; J A Rowlands
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography.

Authors:  G Compagnone; M Casadio Baleni; L Pagan; F L Calzolaio; L Barozzi; C Bergamini
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Comparison of doses for bedside examinations of the chest with conventional screen-film and computed radiography: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  G C Weatherburn; S Bryan; J G Davies
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus screen-film radiography: effect of dose reduction on the detectability of cortical bone defects and fractures.

Authors:  M Strotzer; J Gmeinwieser; M Spahn; M Völk; R Fründ; J Seitz; V Spies; J Alexander; S Feuerbach
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 6.016

8.  Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography.

Authors:  R Aufrichtig; P Xue
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.

Authors:  Okka W Hamer; Markus Völk; Zorger Zorger; Stefan Feuerbach; Michael Strotzer
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 6.016

10.  Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom.

Authors:  Z F Lu; E L Nickoloff; J C So; A K Dutta
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  4 in total

1.  General equations for optimal selection of diagnostic image acquisition parameters in clinical X-ray imaging.

Authors:  Xiaoming Zheng
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2017-08-18

2.  Use of a computer simulator to investigate optimized tube voltage for chest imaging of average patients with a digital radiography (DR) imaging system.

Authors:  Craig Steven Moore; Tim Wood; Ged Avery; Steve Balcam; Liam Needler; Hiten Joshi; Najeeb Ahmed; John Saunderson; Andrew Beavis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Dose reduction in digital radiography based on the significance of marginal contrast detectability.

Authors:  Alexander W Scott; Yifang Zhou; Di Zhang; Nader Binesh; Christina Lee; Mark Bosteder
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 4.  Patient-based radiographic exposure factor selection: a systematic review.

Authors:  William Ching; John Robinson; Mark McEntee
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.