Does digital flat detector technology tip the scale towards better image quality or reduced patient dose in interventional cardiology?

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 348-353

  Bogaert, E ^a   Bacher, K ^a   Lapere, R ^a   Thierens, H ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Flat detector; Image intensifier; Image quality; Interventional cardiology; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

FLAT DETECTORS; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; IMAGE INTENSIFIERS; INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE;

CARDIOLOGY; DETECTORS; DOSIMETRY; FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD; FLUORESCENT SCREENS; IMAGE INTENSIFIERS (ELECTRON TUBE); IMAGE INTENSIFIERS (SOLID STATE); IMAGING SYSTEMS; PROFITABILITY;

IMAGE QUALITY;

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; BRIGHTNESS; CINERADIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST RADIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMAN; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; IMAGE QUALITY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; X RAY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL PROCEDURES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 71849096440     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.07.028     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Noel A., and Thibault F. Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. European Radiology 14 11 (2004) 1990-1998
2. Holmes D.R., Laskey W.K., Wondrow M.A., and Cusma J.T. Flat-panel detectors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: revolution or evolution-what are the issues?. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 63 3 (2004) 324-330
3. Spahn M. Flat detectors and their clinical applications. European Radiology 15 9 (2005) 1934-1947
4. Granfors P.R., and Aufrichtig R. Performance of a 41 × 41-cm(2) amorphous silicon flat panel X-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. Medical Physics 27 6 (2000) 1324-1331
5. Seibert J.A. Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they?. Pediatric Radiology 36 (2006) 173-181
6. Davies GA, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Moore J, Sivanathan MU. Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality. European Radiology 2007;17:1787-94.
7. Antonuk L.E., Jee K.W., El-Mohri Y., et al. Strategies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat-panel imagers for diagnostic X-ray applications. Medical Physics 27 2 (2000) 289-306
8. Maolinbay M., El-Mohri Y., Antonuk L.E., et al. Additive noise properties of active matrix flat-panel imagers. Medical Physics 27 8 (2000) 1841-1854
9. Moy J.P. Recent developments in X-ray imaging detectors. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment 442 1-3 (2000) 26-37
10. Trianni A., Bernardi G., and Padovani R. Are new technologies always reducing patient doses in cardiac procedures?. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 117 1-3 (2006) 97-101
11. Vaño E., Geiger B., Schreiner A., Back C., and Beissel J. Dynamic flat panel detector versus image intensifier in cardiac imaging: dose and image quality. Physics in Medicine and Biology 50 23 (2005) 5731-5742
12. Tsapaki V., Kottou S., Kollaros N., et al. Dose performance evaluation of a charge coupled device and a flat-panel digital fluoroscopy system recently installed in an interventional cardiology laboratory. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 111 3 (2004) 297-304
13. Busse F., Rütten W., Sandkamp B., et al. Design and performance of a high-quality cardiac flat detector. Proceedings of the SPIE 4682 (2002) 819-827
14. Bruijns T., Bastiaens R., Hoornaert B., et al. Image quality of a large area dynamic flat detector: comparison with a state-of-the-art II/TV system. Proceedings of the SPIE 4682 (2002) 332-343
15. Thijssen MAO, Bijkerk KR, van der Burght RJM. Manual contrast-detail phantom CDRAD Type 2.0: project quality assurance in radiology. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Nijmegen, St.-Radboud, The Netherlands; 1998.
16. Tapiovaara M.J., and Sandborg M. How should low-contrast detail detectability be measured in fluoroscopy?. Medical Physics 31 9 (2004) 2564-2576
17. Burgess A.E. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced-choice observer performance-measurement methods. Medical Physics 22 5 (1995) 643-655
18. ezDICOM software available at http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/ezdicom.html.
19. Nickoloff E.L., Lu Z.F., Dutta A., et al. Influence of flat-panel fluoroscopic equipment variables on cardiac radiation doses. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology 30 2 (2007) 169-176
20. Granfors P.R., Aufrichtig R., Possin G.E., et al. Performance of a 41 × 41 cm(2) amorphous silicon flat panel X-ray detector designed for angiographic and R&F imaging applications. Medical Physics 30 10 (2003) 2715-2726