|
|
||||||||
Experimental Studies |
1 From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053 Regensburg, Germany. Received February 4, 1999; revision requested April 1; revision received August 23; accepted September 14. Address correspondence to M.S.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of an active-matrix flat-panel x-ray detector for reduced-dose imaging of simulated arthritic lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A digital x-ray detector based on cesium iodide and amorphous silicon technology with a panel size of 43 x 43 cm, matrix of 3,000 x 3,000 pixels, pixel size of 143 µm, and digital output of 14 bits was used. State-of-the-art screen-film radiographs were compared with digital images obtained at doses equivalent to those obtained with system speeds of 400, 560, and 800. The phantom was composed of a human hand skeleton on an acrylic plate with drilled holes simulating bone erosions of different diameters and depths. Results of four independent observers were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
RESULTS: The cesium iodide and amorphous silicon detector resulted in better diagnostic performance than did the screen-film combination, with the dose being the same for both modalities (P < .05). For digital images obtained at reduced doses, no significant differences were found.
CONCLUSION: The improved diagnostic performance with digital radiographs obtained with the cesium iodide and amorphous silicon detector suggests that this detector technology holds promise in terms of dose reduction for specific diagnostic tasks, without loss of diagnostic accuracy.
Index terms: Bones, radiography, 40.1215 Flat panel detector Radiography, comparative studies, 40.11, 40.1215 Radiography, digital, 40.1215 Radiography, technology Screens and films
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] |
||||
![]() |
P. L. Kleinman, D. Zurakowski, K. J. Strauss, R. H. Cleveland, J. M. Perez-Rosello, D. P. Nichols, K. H. Zou, and P. K. Kleinman Detection of Simulated Inflicted Metaphyseal Fractures in a Fetal Pig Model: Image Optimization and Dose Reduction with Computed Radiography Radiology, May 1, 2008; 247(2): 381 - 390. [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] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Hatakeyama, S. Kakeda, N. Ohnari, J. Moriya, N. Oda, K. Nishino, W. Miyamoto, and Y. Korogi Reduction of Radiation Dose for Cerebral Angiography Using Flat Panel Detector of Direct Conversion Type: A Vascular Phantom Study AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2007; 28(4): 645 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Neofotistou, V. Tsapaki, S. Kottou, A. Schreiner-Karoussou, and E. Vano Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? A pilot study and review of the literature Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 204 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. Rapp-Bernhardt, T. M. Bernhardt, H. Lenzen, R. Esseling, F. W. Roehl, M. Schiborr, I. Theobald-Hormann, and W. Heindel Experimental Evaluation of a Portable Indirect Flat-Panel Detector for the Pediatric Chest: Comparison with Storage Phosphor Radiography at Different Exposures by Using a Chest Phantom Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 485 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Suzuki, S. Furui, I. Kobayashi, T. Yamauchi, H. Kohtake, K. Takeshita, K. Takada, and M. Yamagishi Radiation Dose to Patients and Radiologists During Transcatheter Arterial Embolization: Comparison of a Digital Flat-Panel System and Conventional Unit Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 855 - 859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Mazumdar Group Sequential Design for Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Implications and Guidelines for Practitioners Med Decis Making, October 1, 2004; 24(5): 525 - 533. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Uffmann, C. Schaefer-Prokop, U. Neitzel, M. Weber, C. J. Herold, and M. Prokop Skeletal Applications for Flat-Panel versus Storage-Phosphor Radiography: Effect of Exposure on Detection of Low-Contrast Details Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 506 - 514. [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] |
||||
![]() |
U. Rapp-Bernhardt, F. W. Roehl, R. C. Gibbs, H. Schmidl, U. W. Krause, and T. M. Bernhardt Flat-Panel X-ray Detector Based on Amorphous Silicon versus Asymmetric Screen-Film System: Phantom Study of Dose Reduction and Depiction of Simulated Findings Radiology, May 1, 2003; 227(2): 484 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Ludwig, C. Schulke, S. Diederich, D. Wormanns, H. Lenzen, T. M. Bernhardt, P. Brinckmann, and W. Heindel Detection of Subtle Undisplaced Rib Fractures in a Porcine Model: Radiation Dose Requirement--Digital Flat-Panel versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 163 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Fink, P. J. Hallscheidt, G. Noeldge, A. Kampschulte, B. Radeleff, W. P. Hosch, G. W. Kauffmann, and J. Hansmann Clinical Comparative Study with a Large-Area Amorphous Silicon Flat-Panel Detector: Image Quality and Visibility of Anatomic Structures on Chest Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2002; 178(2): 481 - 486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Y. Kim, K. S. Cho, K.-S. Song, J. H. Kim, J.-G. Kim, and H. K. Ha Urinary Calculi on Computed Radiography: Comparison of Observer Performance with Hard-Copy Versus Soft-Copy Images on Different Viewer Systems Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 331 - 335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Ludwig, H. Lenzen, K.-F. Kamm, T. M. Link, S. Diederich, D. Wormanns, and W. Heindel Performance of a Flat-Panel Detector in Detecting Artificial Bone Lesions: Comparison with Conventional Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Radiography Radiology, February 1, 2002; 222(2): 453 - 459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||