| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 All authors: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93042 Regensburg, Germany.
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a large-area, flat-panel X-ray detector for performing routine chest radiography at two different detector doses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The chest radiographs of 50 patients (age range, 16-79 years; mean age, 57 years) were obtained at two different detector dose levels. Digital images were taken from the same patients in posteroanterior and lateral views with detector doses of 2.5 µGy and 1.8 µGy, respectively, at 125 kVp tube voltage. The cesium iodide—amorphous silicon active-matrix imager had a panel size of 43 x 43 cm, a matrix of 3000 x 3000, and a pixel pitch of 143 µm. Images were presented in a random order to three independent radiologists who were unaware of the dose level at which the images had been obtained. They subjectively rated image quality on a 4-point scale, according to six criteria (presentation of obscured lung, unobscured lung, airways, mediastinum and hilum, bony thorax, and overall impression). Statistical significance of differences was evaluated with Student's t test for paired samples (confidence level, 95%).
RESULTS. Digital radiographs obtained at 2.5 and 1.8 µGy were equivalent on all quality criteria. No statistically significant differences and no tendency toward a preference for images obtained at one or the other dose level were observed. According to the registered mAs values, the average difference in patient dose was 33%.
CONCLUSION. Use of flat-panel digital imagers based on the cesium iodide—amorphous silicon technique allows a considerable dose reduction during routine chest radiography without loss of image quality.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Wirth, M. Treitl, M. F. Reiser, and M. Korner Imaging Performance with Different Doses in Skeletal Radiography: Comparison of a Needle-structured and a Conventional Storage Phosphor System with a Flat-Panel Detector Radiology, January 1, 2009; 250(1): 152 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L J M Kroft, W J H Veldkamp, B J A Mertens, J-P A van Delft, and J Geleijns Dose reduction in digital chest radiography and perceived image quality Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 80(960): 984 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Korner, C. H. Weber, S. Wirth, K.-J. Pfeifer, M. F. Reiser, and M. Treitl Advances in Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and System Overview RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 675 - 686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. M. Kroft, W. J. H. Veldkamp, B. J. A. Mertens, J. P. A. van Delft, and J. Geleijns Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: dose reduction at digital posteroanterior chest radiography. Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 392 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. W. Hamer, C. B. Sirlin, M. Strotzer, I. Borisch, N. Zorger, S. Feuerbach, and M. Volk Chest Radiography with a Flat-Panel Detector: Image Quality with Dose Reduction after Copper Filtration Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 691 - 700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Metz, P. Damoser, R. Hollweck, R. Roggel, C. Engelke, K. Woertler, B. Renger, E. J. Rummeny, and T. M. Link Chest Radiography with a Digital Flat-Panel Detector: Experimental Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 776 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Ludwig, K. Ahlers, D. Wormanns, M. Freund, T. M. Bernhardt, S. Diederich, and W. Heindel Lumbar Spine Radiography: Digital Flat-Panel Detector versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems in Monkeys as a Pediatric Model Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 140 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
