AJR Not a Member? Click to Join ARRS!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Strotzer, M.
Right arrow Articles by Feuerbach, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Strotzer, M.
Right arrow Articles by Feuerbach, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2002; 178:169-171
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Routine Chest Radiography Using a Flat-Panel Detector

Image Quality at Standard Detector Dose and 33% Dose Reduction

Michael Strotzer1, Markus Völk1, Rüdiger Fründ1, Okka Hamer1, Niels Zorger1 and Stefan Feuerbach1

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.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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, November 10, 2008; (2008) 2493080640.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
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]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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
Copyright © 2002 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.