F Barkhof1, E David, F de Geest. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Vrije Universiteit Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. msmri@xs4all.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Digital fluoroscopy systems have been developed for gastrointestinal barium studies. We compare the performance of a commercially available digital fluoroscopy system with conventional film-screen combinations in gastrointestinal barium studies. METHODS: Two consecutive groups of outpatients underwent diagnostic barium examinations of esophagus, stomach, or colon using either a film-screen technique (n = 32) or a digital fluoroscopy system with an 8-bit gray scale (n = 31). A standardized biphasic protocol was employed in all patients by the same set of investigators and scored subjectively for contrast performance in single-contrast and double-contrast mode and for spatial resolution. RESULTS: For the whole group there were no significant differences between the two techniques. In the subgroup of esophagus studies, digital fluoroscopy performed better during the full-column part of the examination. In the subgroup of colon studies, the film-screen technique performed better during the double-contrast part of the examination. To reach sufficient spatial resolution with the digital system (884(2) matrix), the smallest input screen had to be used (23 cm), resulting in a higher number of exposures than with the film-screen combination (P = 0.006). The average amount of film used was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting the contrast performance and spatial resolution of digital fluoroscopy systems can be comparable with conventional film-screen combinations.
OBJECTIVE: Digital fluoroscopy systems have been developed for gastrointestinal barium studies. We compare the performance of a commercially available digital fluoroscopy system with conventional film-screen combinations in gastrointestinal barium studies. METHODS: Two consecutive groups of outpatients underwent diagnostic barium examinations of esophagus, stomach, or colon using either a film-screen technique (n = 32) or a digital fluoroscopy system with an 8-bit gray scale (n = 31). A standardized biphasic protocol was employed in all patients by the same set of investigators and scored subjectively for contrast performance in single-contrast and double-contrast mode and for spatial resolution. RESULTS: For the whole group there were no significant differences between the two techniques. In the subgroup of esophagus studies, digital fluoroscopy performed better during the full-column part of the examination. In the subgroup of colon studies, the film-screen technique performed better during the double-contrast part of the examination. To reach sufficient spatial resolution with the digital system (884(2) matrix), the smallest input screen had to be used (23 cm), resulting in a higher number of exposures than with the film-screen combination (P = 0.006). The average amount of film used was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting the contrast performance and spatial resolution of digital fluoroscopy systems can be comparable with conventional film-screen combinations.
Authors: Jakob Weiss; Andreas Pomschar; Carsten Rist; Klement Neumaier; Minglun Li; Wilhelm Flatz; Kolja Thierfelder; Mike Notohamiprodjo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-07-22 Impact factor: 3.469