Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 82, Issue 973, 2009, Pages 62-68

  Geijer, H ^a,b   Norrman, E ^a,b   Persliden, J ^a,b  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DOSIMETER; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; LUMBAR SPINE; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PHANTOM; PICTURE ARCHIVING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM; RADIATION DOSE; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY;

HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 58849101831     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/56572915     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Geijer H, Persliden J. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:240-5.
2. Tingberg A, Sjostrom D. Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:286-93.
3. Wiltz HJ, Petersen U, Axelsson B. Reduction of absorbed dose in storage phosphor urography by significant lowering of tube voltage and adjustment of image display parameters. Acta Radiol 2005;46:391-5.
4. Spahn M. Flat detectors and their clinical applications. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1934-47.
5. Neitzel U. Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:32-8.
6. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK - 2005 review. HPA-RPD-029. Chilton, UK: HPA, 2007.
7. Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2001:218-76;455-61.
8. Wise KN, Sandborg M, Persliden J, Carlsson GA. Sensitivity of coefficients for converting entrance surface dose and kerma-area product to effective dose and energy imparted to the patient. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:1937-54.
9. Struelens L, Vanhavere F, Bosnians H, Van Loon R. Effective doses in angiography and interventional radiology: calculation of conversion coefficients for angiography of the lower limbs. Br J Radiol 2005;78:135-42.
10. Norrman E, Persliden J. A factorial experiment on image quality and radiation dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:246-52.
11. Thijssen MAO, Thijssen HOM, Merx JL, Lindeijer JM, Bijkerk KR. A definition of image quality: the image quality figure. In: Moores BM, Wall BF, Eriskat H, Schibilla H, editors. BIR Report 20: Optimization of image quality and patient exposure in diagnostic radiology. London, UK: The British Institute of Radiology, 1989:29-34.
12. Norrman E, Gårdestig M, Persliden J, Geijer H. A clinical evaluation of the image quality computer program, CoCIQ. J Digit Imaging 2005;18:138-44.
13. Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Servomaa A. PCXMC - A PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations. Version 1.3. STUK-A139. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, 1997.
14. Månsson LG. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000;90:89-99.
15. Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images, EUR 16260. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996.
16. Svensson E. Ordinal invariant measures for individual and group changes in ordered categorical data. Stat Med 1998;17:2923-36.
17. Axelsson B, Petersen U, Wiltz HJ. Digital skeletal radiography. Reduction of absorbed dose by adaptation of exposure factors and image processing. Acta Radiol 2001;42:592-8.
18. Doherty P, O'Leary D, Brennan PC. Do CEC guidelinesunder-utilise the full potential of increasing kVp as a dose-reducing tool? Eur Radiol 2003;13:1992-9.
19. Oda N, Nakata H, Murakami S, Terada K, Nakamura K, Yoshida A. Optimal beam quality for chest computed radiography. Invest Radiol 1996;31:126-31.
20. Uffmann M, Neitzel U, Prokop M, Kabalan N, Weber M, Herold CJ, et al. Flat-panel-detector chest radiography: effect of tube voltage on image quality. Radiology 2005;235:642-50.
21. Sandborg M, Alm Carlsson G, Persliden J, Dance DR. Comparison of different materials for test phantoms in diagnostic radiology. Nuclear Technology Publishing 1993;49:345-7.
22. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical diagnostic X-ray equipment - radiation conditions for use in the determination of characteristics. IEC 61267. Geneva, Switzerland: IEC, 2005.
23. Jansson M, Geijer H, Persliden J, Andersson T. Reducing dose in urography while maintaining image quality - a comparison of storage phosphor plates and a flat-panel detector. Eur Radiol 2006;16:221-6.
24. Honey ID, Mackenzie A, Evans DS. Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film-screen and computed radiography. Br J Radiol 2005;78:422-7.
25. Ducote JL, Xu T, Molloi S. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and X-ray image intensifier. Phys Med Biol 2007;52:183-96.
26. Marshall NW. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:2441-63.
27. Peterzol A, Padovani R, Quai E, Vano E, Prieto C, Aviles P. The application of image quality measurements for digital angiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;117:38-43.