Criteria to optimise a dynamic flat detector system used for interventional radiology

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 129, Issue 1-3, 2008, Pages 261-264

  Simon, R ^a,b   Vano, Elise ^a,c   Prieto, C ^a   Fernandez, J M ^a,c   Ordiales, J M ^a   Martinez, D ^a  

^a HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL CLÍNICO UNIVERSITARIO DE VALLADOLID   (Spain)

^c SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; FLUOROSCOPY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; PHANTOM; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; RADIATION DETECTOR; RADIATION FIELD; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIMULATION; CHEMISTRY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEART DISEASE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; STANDARD; X RAY;

ANGIOGRAPHY, DIGITAL SUBTRACTION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FLUOROSCOPY; HEART DISEASES; HUMANS; POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOLOGY, INTERVENTIONAL; X-RAYS;

EID: 48349146194     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncn027     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Vano, E., Geiger, B. and Schreiner, A. Dynamic flat panel detector versus image intensifier in cardiac imaging: Dose and image quality. Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 5731-5742 (2005).
2. http://www.medical.philips.com/main/products/cardiovascular/products/ FD20_radio/FD20_radio.html. Accessed 9 April 2007.
3. Faulkner, K. Introduction to constancy check protocols in fluoroscopic systems. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 94(1-2), 65-68 (2001).
4. http://www.leedstestobjects.com/index.php?module_name=products/ product_setup&product_name=TOR%2018FG&group_name=Fluoroscopy. Accessed 9 April 2007.
5. Balter, S., Heupler, F.A., Paul Lin, P. J. and Merrill, H. W. A new tool for benchmarking cardiovascular fluoroscopes. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 52(1), 67-72. (2001).
6. http://www.nema.org/stds/complimentary-docs/upload/ XR21-NEMA-Instructions.pdf. Accessed 9 April 2007.
7. Hunt, D. C., Tousignant, O. and Rowlands, J. A. Evaluation of the imaging properties of an amorphous selenium-based flat panel detector for digital fluoroscopy. Med. Phys. 31(5), 1166-1175 (2004).
8. Peterzol, A., Padovani, R., Quai, E., Vano, E., Prieto, C. and Aviles, P. The application of image quality measurements for digital angiography. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 117(1-3), 38-43 (2005).
9. Tapiovaara, M. J. and Sandborg, M. How should low-contrast detail detectability be measured in fluoroscopy? Med. Phys. 31(9) 2564-76. (2004)
10. http://www.unfors.com/products.php?catid=19. Accessed 9 April 2007.
11. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Patient dosimetry for X rays used in medical imaging. ICRU Report 74. J. ICRU 5 Medical imaging: The assessment of image quality. ICRU Bethesda, Maryland (2005).
12. www.sim.hcuge.ch/uin Accessed 9 April 2007.
13. Sprawls, P. Physical principle of medical imaging. (Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing corporation) (1995) ISBN 0 944 838545.