|
|
||||||||
Experimental Studies |
1 From the Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Muenster, Albert Schweitzer Strasse 33, D-48129 Muenster, Germany. Received July 8, 1999; revision requested August 25; revision received October 12; accepted November 22. Address correspondence to K.L. (e-mail: lud@uni-muenster.de).
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of selenium-based digital radiography with that of conventional screen-film radiography and storage phosphor radiography for the detection of bone lesions simulating osteolyses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial osseous lesions 1.03.0 mm in diameter were created in 80 of 160 predefined regions in 16 porcine femoral specimens. Specimens were enclosed in containers filled with paraffin to ensure accurate repositioning and to obtain an absorption condition comparable to that of a human extremity. Imaging was performed with a selenium-based digital radiography system, a conventional screen-film system, and a storage phosphor radiography system with an exposure identical to that used during clinical imaging. The presence of a lesion was assessed with a five-point confidence scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for a total of 1,440 observations (480 per modality), and diagnostic performance was estimated with the area under the ROC curve (Az). Differences in diagnostic performance were assessed with the paired Student t test.
RESULTS: ROC analysis results showed Az values of 0.656 for selenium-based digital radiography, 0.679 for storage phosphor radiography, and 0.680 for conventional screen-film radiography. Differences between the three modalities were not significant (P = .60.93).
CONCLUSION: Image quality with selenium-based digital radiography was comparable to that with conventional screen-film radiography and storage phosphor radiography.
Index terms: Animals Bones, radiography, 451.11, 451.1215, 451.1219 Femur, abnormalities, 451.1869 Radiography, comparative studies, 451.11, 451.1215, 451.1219 Radiography, digital, 451.1215 Radiography, selenium detector, 451.1219 Radiography, storage phosphor, 451.1219 Selenium
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
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. Zahringer, B. Krug, K.-F. Kamm, G. Wassmer, M. Hellmich, G. Winnekendonk, J. Andermahr, A. Go{beta}mann, and K. J. Lackner Detection of Porcine Bone Lesions and Fissures: Comparing Digital Selenium, Digital Luminescence, and Analog Film-Screen Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2001; 177(6): 1397 - 1403. [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] |
||||