COMPARISON OF RADIATION EXPOSURE TO THE PATIENT AND CONTRAST DETAIL RESOLUTIONS ACROSS LOW DOSE 2D/3D SLOT SCANNER AND TWO CONVENTIONAL DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY X-RAY IMAGING SYSTEMS.


Journal

Radiation protection dosimetry
ISSN: 1742-3406
Titre abrégé: Radiat Prot Dosimetry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8109958

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Dec 2019
Historique:
received: 07 04 2018
revised: 08 01 2019
accepted: 29 01 2019
pubmed: 28 2 2019
medline: 2 7 2020
entrez: 28 2 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To assess and compare the radiation dose and image quality of the low dose 2D/3D EOS slot scanner (LDSS) to conventional digital radiography (DR) X-ray imaging systems for chest and knee examination protocols. The effective doses (ED) to the patient in the chest and knee clinical examination protocols for LDSS and DR X-ray imaging systems were determined using the dose area product and PCXMC Monte Carlo simulation software. The CDRAD phantom was imaged with 19 cm, and 13 cm thick Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) blocks to simulate the chest and knees respectively of a patient of average adult size. The contrast detail resolution was calculated using image analysis software. The EDs for the LDSS default setting were up to 69% and 51% lower than for the DR systems for the chest (speed 4) and knee (speed 6) protocols, respectively, while for the increased dose level setting then the EDs were up to 42% and 35% lower than for the DR systems for the chest (speed 6) and knee (speed 8) protocols respectively. At the default setting, the contrast detail was lowest for the default setting of the 2D/3D low dose slot scanner (LDSS) for both chest and knee examinations, but at the highest dose levels then the threshold were equal or higher than the contrast resolution of DR imaging systems. The LDSS has the potential to be used for clinical diagnosis of chest and knee examinations using the higher dose level. For speed 6 in chest protocol and speed 8 in knee protocol, the measured contrast detail resolution was comparable with the DR systems but at a lower effective dose.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30809672
pii: 5365750
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncz006
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

252-265

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Ahmed Jibril Abdi (AJ)

Region of Southern Denmark, Clinical Engineering Department, Area of Diagnostic Radiology, B. Winsløws Vej 4, Indgang 34, Odense C, Denmark.

Bo Mussmann (B)

Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark.

Alistair Mackenzie (A)

National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, United Kingdom.

Benedikte Klaerke (B)

Region of Southern Denmark, Clinical Engineering Department, Area of Diagnostic Radiology, B. Winsløws Vej 4, Indgang 34, Odense C, Denmark.

Poul Erik Andersen (PE)

Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH