Flat-panel X-ray detector using amorphous silicon technology: Reduced radiation dose for the detection of foreign bodies

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 32, Issue 7, 1997, Pages 373-377

  Völk, Markus ^a   Strotzer, Michael ^a   Gmeinwieser, Josef ^a   Alexanders, Joachim ^b   Fründ, Rüdiger ^a   Seitz, Johannes ^a   Manke, Christoph ^a   Spahn, Martin ^b   Feuerbach, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^b SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Amorphous silicon; Digital imaging; Foreign bodies

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM; CESIUM; COPPER; GLASS; GRAPHITE; IRON; LEAD; SILICON; THALLIUM;

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FOREIGN BODY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIODIAGNOSIS; X RAY ANALYSIS;

EID: 0030820128     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199707000-00001     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Antonuk LE, Boudry J, Huang W, et al. Demonstration of megavoltage and diagnostic x-ray imaging with hydrogenated amorphous silicon arrays. Med Phys 1992;19:1455-1466.
2. Antonuk LE, Yorkston J, Huang W, et al. A real-time, flat panel, amorphous silicon, digital x-ray imager. Radiographics 1995;15:993-1000.
3. Haus AG. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Mea- sures of screen-film performance. Radiographics 1996;5:1165-1181.
4. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986;21:720-733.
5. Anderson M, Newmeer WL, Kilgore ES Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of retained foreign bodies in the hand. Am J Surg 1982;144:63-65.
6. De Lacey G, Evans R, Sandin B. Penetrating injuries: How easy is it to see glass (and plastic) on radiographs? Br J Radiol 1985;58:27-30.
7. Tanberg D. Glass in hand and foot, will x-ray show it? JAMA 1982;248:1872-1874.
8. Wilson JW, Mann FA, Murphy WA, et al. Photo stimulable phosphor digital radiography of extremities: Diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional radiography. AIR Ara J Roentgenol 1991;157:533-538.
9. Murphey MD. Digital skeletal radiography: Spatial resolution requirements for detection of subperiostal resorption. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:541-546.
10. Reiner B, Siegel E, McLaurin T, et al. Evaluation of soft-tissue foreign bodies: Comparing conventional plain film radiography, computed radiography printed on film, and computed radiography displayed on a computed workstation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:141-144.
11. Roobottom CA, Weston MJ. The detection of foreign bodies in soft tissue-comparison of conventional and digital radiography. Clin Radiol 1994;49:330-332.
12. Murphey MD, Quale JL, Martin NL, et al. Computed radiography in musculoskeletal imaging: State of the art. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:19-27.
13. Buckwalter KA, Braunstein EM. Digital skeletal radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:1071-1080.
14. Wegryn SA, Piraino PW, Richmond BJ, et al. Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography: An observer performance study. Radiology 1990;175:225-228.
15. Richmond BJ, Powers C, Piraino DW, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of digitized images vs plain films: A study of the joints of the fingers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:437-441.
16. Frank MS, Jost RG, Molina PL, et al. High-resolution computer display of portable, digital chest radiographs of adults: Suitability for primary interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;160:473-477.