HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zähringer, M. Articles by Lackner, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zähringer, M. Articles by Lackner, K. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Reducing the Radiation Dose During Excretory Urography: Flat-Panel Silicon X-Ray Detector Versus Computed Radiography

¹ Department of Radiology, University of Cologne, Medical School, Joseph-Stelzmann-Str. 9, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
² Philips Medical Systems, Röntgenstraße 24, Hamburg 22335, Germany.
³ Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Medical School, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
⁴ Department of Urology, University of Cologne, Medical School, 50924 Cologne, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of the study was to examine the possibilities for reducing radiation exposure in uroradiology using digital flat-panel silicon X-ray detector radiography. We compared the subjectively determined image quality of abdominal radiographs and urograms obtained on a digital flat-panel detector radiography system with those obtained on a computed radiography system.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty patients who had a clinical indication for urography underwent unenhanced abdominal imaging that was alternately performed using flat-panel silicon X-ray detector radiography or computed radiography. For patients who required a second radiograph with contrast medium, the examination modality was changed to avoid exposing the patients to excess radiation. The images obtained on flat-panel X-ray detector radiography were obtained at half the radiation dose of the images obtained on computed radiography (800 speed vs 400 speed). The resulting 50 pairs of images were interpreted by four independent observers who rated the detectability of structures of bone and the efferent urinary tract relevant to diagnosis and compared the image quality.

RESULTS. At half the radiation dose, digital flat-panel X-ray detector radiography provided equivalent image quality of the liver and spleen, lumbar vertebrae 2 and 5, pelvis, and psoas margin on abdominal radiographs. The image quality obtained with digital flat-panel X-ray detector radiography of the kidneys, the hollow cavities of the upper efferent urinary tract, and the urinary bladder was judged to be statistically better than those obtained with computed radiography.

CONCLUSION. With half the exposure dose of computed radiography, the flat-panel X-ray detector produced urograms with an image quality equivalent to or better than computed radiography.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Huda The Current Concept of Speed Should Not Be Used to Describe Digital Imaging Systems Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 345 - 346. [Full Text] [PDF]