Reduction of radiation dose for cerebral angiography using flat panel detector of direct conversion type: A vascular phantom study

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 645-650

  Hatakeyama, Y ^a   Kakeda, Shingo ^a,c   Ohnari, N ^a   Moriya, J ^a   Oda, N ^a   Nishino, K ^b   Miyamoto, W ^b   Korogi, Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH   (Japan)

^b SHIMADZU CORPORATION   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANEURYSM; ARTICLE; BRAIN ANGIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; FLAT PANEL DETECTOR; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; IMAGE QUALITY; NEUROIMAGING; PHANTOM; RADIATION DOSE; TELEVISION;

ANGIOGRAPHY, DIGITAL SUBTRACTION; CEREBRAL ANGIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; INTRACRANIAL ANEURYSM; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ROC CURVE; TELEVISION;

EID: 34247269288     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. AM Norbash, D Busick, MP Marks. Techniques for reducing interventional neuroradiology skin dose: tube position rotation and supplemental beam filtration. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:41-49
2. Huda W, Peters KR. Radiation-induced temporary epilation after a neuroradiologically guided embolization procedure. Radiology 1994;193:642-44
3. Kuwayama N, Takaku A, Endo S, et al. Radiation exposure in endovascular surgery of the head and neck. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1801-08
4. Merriam GR Jr, Focht EF. A clinical study of radiation cataracts and the relationship to dose. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1957;77:759-85
5. Merriam GR Jr. A clinical study of radiation cataracts. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1956;54:611-53
6. Strotzer M, Volk M, Wild T, et al. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology 2000;215:512-15
7. Ludwig K, Lenzen H, Kamm KF, et al. Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography. Radiology 2002;222:453-59
8. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, Volk M, et al. Clinical application of a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction in skeletal radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:23-27
9. Garmer M, Hennigs SP, Jager HJ, et al. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:75-80
10. Link TM, Rummeny EJ, Lenzen H, et al. Artificial bone erosions: detection with magnification radiography versus conventional high-resolution radiography. Radiology 1994;192:861-64
11. Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen JH. Maximum-likelihood estimation of receiver operating (ROC) characteristic curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med 1998;17:1033-53
12. Adachi S, Hori N, Sato K, et al. Experimental evaluation of a-Se and CdTe flat-panel x-ray detectors for digital radiography and fluoroscopy. Proc SPIE 2000;3977:38-47
13. Samei E, Flynn MJ. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. Med Phys 2003;30:608-22
14. Voelk M, Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, et al. Flat-panel x-ray detector using amorphous silicon technology: reduced radiation dose for the detection of foreign bodies. Investig Radiol 1997;32:373-77
15. Rowlands JA, Hunter DM, Araj N. X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: a photoinduced discharge readout method for digital mammography. Med Phys 1991;18:421-31
16. Chotas HG, Dobbins JT, Rabin CE. Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics. Radiology 1999;210:595-99
17. Zhao W, Ji WG, Debrie A, et al. imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector. Med Phys 2003;30:254-63
18. Seibert JA, Nalrioglu O, Roeck WW. Characterization of the veiling glare PSF in x-ray image intensified fluoroscopy. Med Phys 1984;11:172-79
19. Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Med Phys 1999;26:1349-58
20. Spahn M, Strotzer M, Volk M, et al. Digital radiography with a large-area, amorphous-silicon, flat-panel x-ray detector system. Investig Radiol 2000;35:260-66
21. Floyd CE, Warp RJ, Dobbins JT, et al. Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography. Radiology 2001;218:683-88
22. Beck J, Rohde S, el Beltagy M, et al. Difference in configuration of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms determined by biplanar digital subtraction angiography. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2003;145:861-65
23. Balter S, Schueler BA, Miller DL, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR Study. Part III: Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15:919-26
24. Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study, part II: skin dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:977-90
25. Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:711-27