OBJECTIVE: Radiation dose and image quality estimation of three X-ray volume imaging (XVI) systems. METHODS: A total of 126 patients were examined using three XVI systems (groups 1-3) and their data were retrospectively analysed from 2007 to 2012. Each group consisted of 42 patients and each patient was examined using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and digital fluoroscopy (DF). Dose parameters such as dose-area product (DAP), skin entry dose (SED) and image quality parameters such as Hounsfield unit (HU), noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were estimated and compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: Mean DAP and SED were lower in recent XVI than its previous counterparts in CBCT, DSA and DF. HU of all measured locations was non-significant between the groups except the hepatic artery. Noise showed significant difference among groups (P < 0.05). Regarding CNR and SNR, the recent XVI showed a higher and significant difference compared to its previous versions. Qualitatively, CBCT showed significance between versions unlike the DSA and DF which showed non-significance. CONCLUSION: A reduction of radiation dose was obtained for the recent-generation XVI system in CBCT, DSA and DF. Image noise was significantly lower; SNR and CNR were higher than in previous versions. The technological advancements and the reduction in the number of frames led to a significant dose reduction and improved image quality with the recent-generation XVI system. KEY POINTS: • X-ray volume imaging (XVI) systems are increasingly used for interventional radiological procedures. • More modern XVI systems use lower radiation doses compared with earlier counterparts. • Furthermore more modern XVI systems provide higher image quality. • Technological advances reduce radiation dose and improve image quality.
OBJECTIVE: Radiation dose and image quality estimation of three X-ray volume imaging (XVI) systems. METHODS: A total of 126 patients were examined using three XVI systems (groups 1-3) and their data were retrospectively analysed from 2007 to 2012. Each group consisted of 42 patients and each patient was examined using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and digital fluoroscopy (DF). Dose parameters such as dose-area product (DAP), skin entry dose (SED) and image quality parameters such as Hounsfield unit (HU), noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were estimated and compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: Mean DAP and SED were lower in recent XVI than its previous counterparts in CBCT, DSA and DF. HU of all measured locations was non-significant between the groups except the hepatic artery. Noise showed significant difference among groups (P < 0.05). Regarding CNR and SNR, the recent XVI showed a higher and significant difference compared to its previous versions. Qualitatively, CBCT showed significance between versions unlike the DSA and DF which showed non-significance. CONCLUSION: A reduction of radiation dose was obtained for the recent-generation XVI system in CBCT, DSA and DF. Image noise was significantly lower; SNR and CNR were higher than in previous versions. The technological advancements and the reduction in the number of frames led to a significant dose reduction and improved image quality with the recent-generation XVI system. KEY POINTS: • X-ray volume imaging (XVI) systems are increasingly used for interventional radiological procedures. • More modern XVI systems use lower radiation doses compared with earlier counterparts. • Furthermore more modern XVI systems provide higher image quality. • Technological advances reduce radiation dose and improve image quality.
Authors: Ulrich Linsenmaier; Clemens Rock; Ekkehard Euler; Stefan Wirth; Roland Brandl; Dorothea Kotsianos; Wolf Mutschler; Klaus Jürgen Pfeifer Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Boris Schulz; Ralf Heidenreich; Monika Heidenreich; Katrin Eichler; Axel Thalhammer; Naguib Nagy Naguib Naeem; Thomas Josef Vogl; Stefan Zangos Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Martin Beeres; Boris Schell; Aristidis Mastragelopoulos; Eva Herrmann; Josef Matthias Kerl; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Clara Lee; Petra Siebenhandl; Boris Bodelle; Stephan Zangos; Thomas J Vogl; Volkmar Jacobi; Ralf W Bauer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alda L Tam; Ashraf Mohamed; Marcus Pfister; Ponraj Chinndurai; Esther Rohm; Andrew F Hall; Michael J Wallace Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Vania Tacher; Rafael Duran; MingDe Lin; Jae Ho Sohn; Karun V Sharma; Zhijun Wang; Julius Chapiro; Carmen Gacchina Johnson; Nikhil Bhagat; Matthew R Dreher; Dirk Schäfer; David L Woods; Andrew L Lewis; Yiqing Tang; Michael Grass; Bradford J Wood; Jean-François Geschwind Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 11.105