Literature DB >> 9028842

Musculoskeletal computed radiography in children: scatter reduction and improvement in bony trabecular sharpness using air gap placement of the imaging plate.

S R Kottamasu1, L R Kuhns.   

Abstract

The effect of various air gaps on computed radiographic musculoskeletal images was investigated using a knee phantom. Scatter to primary radiation ratios were measured using the beam stop method at air gaps ranging from 0 to 30 in. (0-762-mm). Bony trabecular sharpness, line pair resolution, quantum mottle and visualization of low-contrast beads in the soft tissues were evaluated. A significant reduction of scatter to primary radiation ratio, from a value of almost 1 at table top to about 0.4 at 10-in. (254-mm) air gap and about 0.2 at 25-in. (635-mm) air gap placement of the computed radiography (CR) imaging plate, was obtained. A progressive improvement in bony trabecular sharpness and line pair resolution, compared with the table top and Bucky images was observed on 10-in. (254-mm) through 25-in. (635-mm) air gap images. Sharpness of the bony trabeculae and line pair resolution were best on the 25-in. (635-mm) air gap images. The skin entrance radiation dose does not have to be increased for air gap digital radiography. The radiographic noise or quantum mottle is highest on the Bucky image, higher on air gap images and minimal on the table top images, despite a high scatter to primary radiation ratio at the table top. The lower quantum mottle on the table top images allowed for maximal visualization of low contrast densities in the soft tissues. Air gap radiography further improves musculoskeletal computed imaging by reducing the scatter to primary radiation ratio without an increase in the skin entrance dose. For significant reduction of the scatter to primary radiation ratio and best evaluation of line pair spatial resolution and bony trabeculae, a 25-in. (635-mm) air gap with digital radiography would be optimal. For evaluation of low contrast densities in the soft tissues, table top placement would be the technique of choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9028842     DOI: 10.1007/s002470050081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Radiol        ISSN: 0301-0449


  10 in total

1.  Grids or air gaps for scatter reduction in digital radiography: a model calculation.

Authors:  U Neitzel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1992 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Diagnostic efficacy of digitized images vs plain films: a study of the joints of the fingers.

Authors:  B J Richmond; C Powers; D W Piraino; H Freed; M A Meziane; J C Hale; M D Schluchter; J Schils; L A Gragg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Digital skeletal radiography: spatial resolution requirements for detection of subperiosteal resorption.

Authors:  M D Murphey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography: an observer performance study.

Authors:  S A Wegryn; D W Piraino; B J Richmond; M D Schluchter; M Uetani; H A Freed; M A Meziane; G A Belhobek
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Pediatric air-gap chest digital imaging: an experimental study.

Authors:  L R Kuhns; S R Kottamasu
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1995-11

6.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Rotating disk device for slit radiography of the chest.

Authors:  J A Sorenson; J A Nelson; L T Niklason; S C Jacobsen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Photostimulable phosphor digital radiography of the extremities: diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional radiography.

Authors:  A J Wilson; F A Mann; W A Murphy; B S Monsees; M R Linn
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Nondisplaced fractures: spatial resolution requirements for detection with digital skeletal imaging.

Authors:  M D Murphey; J M Bramble; L T Cook; N L Martin; S J Dwyer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Scatter in computed radiography.

Authors:  D M Tucker; M Souto; G T Barnes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 11.105

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.