4.7 Article

Imaging Performance with Different Doses in Skeletal Radiography: Comparison of a Needle-structured and a Conventional Storage Phosphor System with a Flat-Panel Detector

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 250, 期 1, 页码 152-160

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2493080640

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate possible radiation dose reduction in the extremities with use of digital radiography and a needle-structured image plate (NIP) by comparing this technique with digital radiography performed with a powder-structured image plate (PIP) and a flat-panel detector (FPD). Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the local review board. A total of 72 plain radiographs of the feet of six human cadavers were obtained with four surface entrance doses (65, 43, 20, and 10 mu Gy) by using three systems. The reference image of each specimen was obtained with an 85-mu Gy dose and with use of a PIP. Five independent blinded radiologists evaluated the images. The noise level and the depiction of the cortical bone, trabecular bone, and soft tissue were rated and compared with those of the reference image by using a five-point scale. An overall image score was developed for these four criteria by calculating the unweighted mean. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess differences between overall image scores. Results: For each dose, NIP images were significantly superior (P <.001), whereas FPD images and PIP images were significantly inferior (P <.01). NIP images obtained with 65-, 43-, and 20-mu Gy doses were significantly superior to reference images and to FPD and PIP images obtained with a 65-mu Gy dose. There were no significant differences between reference images and FPD images obtained with 65- and 43-mu Gy doses. Conclusion: Radiation dose can be reduced by 75% in clinical skeletal imaging of peripheral extremities by using NIP, with no significant loss of information. For FPD images, this might be possible with a dose reduction of 50%. (C) RSNA, 2008

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据