Literature DB >> 32016135

Evaluation of image quality and task performance for a mobile C-arm with a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor detector.

Godwin O Abiola1, Niral M Sheth2, Wojciech Zbijewski2, Matthew W Jacobson2, Christopher Bailey3, John Filtes4, Gerhard Kleinszig5, Sebastian K Vogt5, Stefan Soellradl5, Jens Bialkowski5, William S Anderson6, Jeffrey H Siewerdsen2,3,6, Clifford R Weiss2,3.   

Abstract

We assessed interventional radiologists' task-based image quality preferences for two- and three-dimensional images obtained with a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) flat-panel detector versus a hydrogenated amorphous silicon (a-Si:H) flat-panel detector. CMOS and a-Si:H detectors were implemented on identical mobile C-arms to acquire radiographic, fluoroscopic, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of cadavers undergoing simulated interventional procedures using low- and high-dose settings. Images from both systems were displayed side by side on calibrated, diagnostic-quality displays, and three interventional radiologists evaluated task performance relevant to each image and ranked their preferences based on visibility of pertinent anatomy and interventional devices. Overall, CMOS images were preferred in fluoroscopy ( p = 0.002 ) and CBCT ( p = 0.004 ), at low-dose settings ( p = 0.001 ), and for tasks associated with high levels of spatial resolution [e.g., fine anatomical details ( p = 0.006 ) and assessment of interventional devices ( p = 0.015 )]. No significant difference was found for fluoroscopic imaging tasks emphasizing temporal resolution ( p = 0.072 ), for radiography tasks ( p = 0.825 ), when using high-dose settings ( p = 0.360 ), or tasks involving general anatomy ( p = 0.174 ). The image quality preferences are consistent with reported technical advantages of CMOS regarding finer pixel size and reduced electronic noise.
© 2020 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE).

Entities:  

Keywords:  complementary metal–oxide semiconductor; flat panel detector; hydrogenated amorphous silicon; interventional radiologist

Year:  2020        PMID: 32016135      PMCID: PMC6978664          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.7.1.015501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  10 in total

1.  Strategies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat-panel imagers for diagnostic x-ray applications.

Authors:  L E Antonuk; K W Jee; Y El-Mohri; M Maolinbay; S Nassif; X Rong; Q Zhao; J H Siewerdsen; R A Street; K S Shah
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Digital chest radiography with a selenium-based flat-panel detector versus a storage phosphor system: comparison of soft-copy images.

Authors:  J M Goo; J G Im; J H Kim; J B Seo; T S Kim; S J Shine; W Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Detection of simulated chest lesions by using soft-copy reading: comparison of an amorphous silicon flat-panel-detector system and a storage-phosphor system.

Authors:  Jin Mo Goo; Jung-Gi Im; Hyun Ju Lee; Myung Jin Chung; Joon Beom Seo; Hyae Young Kim; Yu-Jin Lee; Joon-Won Kang; Jong Hyo Kim
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Eric J Hall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview.

Authors:  Markus Körner; Christof H Weber; Stefan Wirth; Klaus-Jürgen Pfeifer; Maximilian F Reiser; Marcus Treitl
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.333

6.  Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; E Janet Tawn; Simon D Bouffler; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  J H Siewerdsen; L E Antonuk; Y el-Mohri; J Yorkston; W Huang; J M Boudry; I A Cunningham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Experimental and theoretical performance analysis for a CMOS-based high resolution image detector.

Authors:  Amit Jain; Daniel R Bednarek; Stephen Rudin
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2014-03-19

9.  Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007.

Authors:  Amy Berrington de González; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca Lewis; Fred Mettler; Charles Land
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14

10.  Mobile C-Arm with a CMOS detector: Technical assessment of fluoroscopy and Cone-Beam CT imaging performance.

Authors:  Niral M Sheth; Wojciech Zbijewski; Matthew W Jacobson; Godwin Abiola; Gerhard Kleinszig; Sebastian Vogt; Stefan Soellradl; Jens Bialkowski; William S Anderson; Clifford R Weiss; Greg M Osgood; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 4.071

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.