Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print February 28, 2003, 10.1148/radiol.2271020378
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2271020378v1
227/1/163    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Ludwig, K.
Right arrow Articles by Heindel, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ludwig, K.
Right arrow Articles by Heindel, W.
(Radiology 2003;227:163-168.)
© RSNA, 2003

Experimental Studies

Detection of Subtle Undisplaced Rib Fractures in a Porcine Model: Radiation Dose Requirement—Digital Flat-Panel versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems1

Karl Ludwig, MD, Christoph Schülke, BS, Stefan Diederich, MD, Dag Wormanns, MD, Horst Lenzen, MS, Thomas M. Bernhardt, MD, Paul Brinckmann, PhD and Walter Heindel, MD

1 From the Department of Clinical Radiology (K.L., C.S., S.D., D.W., H.L., T.M.B., W.H.) and Institute of Experimental Biomechanics (P.B.), University of Munster, Albert-Schweitzer-Strasse 33, D-48129 Munster, Germany. Received April 1, 2002; revision requested June 11; revision received July 9; accepted August 16. Address correspondence to K.L. (e-mail: lud@uni-muenster.de).

PURPOSE: To compare a large-area direct read-out flat-panel detector radiography system with screen-film and storage-phosphor systems with regard to detection of subtle undisplaced rib fractures and to assess the diagnostic performance of the flat-panel system with decreasing exposure level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subtle fractures were created artificially in 100 of 200 porcine rib specimens. Specimens were enclosed in containers of water to generate absorption and scatter radiation conditions similar to those of a human chest wall. Imaging was performed with flat-panel, screen-film, and storage-phosphor systems with conditions that were exactly matched. Different exposure levels equivalent to speed classes (S) of 400, 800, 1,600, and 6,400 were used. All images were independently assessed for the presence of fracture by three radiologists with a five-level confidence scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for a total of 4,200 observations (600 for each imaging system and exposure level). Diagnostic performance was estimated with area under the ROC curve (Az). Significance of differences in diagnostic performance was tested with analysis of variance.

RESULTS: ROC analysis yielded mean Az values for the flat-panel system of 0.879 (S = 400), 0.833 (S = 800), 0.765 (S = 1,600), and 0.576 (S = 6,400). Az values were 0.834 (S = 400) for the screen-film system and 0.789 (S = 400) and 0.729 (S = 800) for the storage-phosphor system. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences in diagnostic performance between various combinations of imaging system and exposure levels (P < .05).

CONCLUSION: The flat-panel system is superior to the screen-film and storage-phosphor systems for detection of subtle undisplaced rib fractures at clinical exposure settings (eg, S = 400). With the flat-panel system, radiation dose can be reduced by 50% to achieve diagnostic performance comparable to that of a speed class 400 screen-film system.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Experimental study • Radiations, measurement • Radiography, digital • Radiography, flat panel • Radiography, comparative studies • Ribs, fractures, 471.41




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
Section on Radiology
Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse
Pediatrics, May 1, 2009; 123(5): 1430 - 1435.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]