Comparison of digital flat-panel detector and conventional angiography machines: Evaluation of stent detection rates, visibility scores, and dose-area products

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 198, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 946-954

  Wiesinger, Benjamin ^a   Stütz, Alexander ^a   Schmehl, Jörg ^a   Claussen, Claus Detlef ^a   Wiskirchen, Jakub ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b Franziskus Krankenhaus   (Germany)

Author keywords

Detection rates; Dose area product; Flat panel detector; Image intensifier system; Radiation dose; Stents

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVENTIONAL ANGIOGRAPHY; FLAT PANEL DETECTOR ANGIOGRAPHY; FLAT PANEL DETECTOR ANGIOGRAPHY MACHINE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTENSIFIER ANGIOGRAPHY; IMAGE INTENSIFIER ANGIOGRAPHY MACHINE; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PELVIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIODIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; STENT; STENT DETECTION RATE; VISIBILITY;

ALLOYS; ANGIOGRAPHY; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMANS; PELVIS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RADIATION DOSAGE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; STENTS; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 84859112411     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7245     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baldelli P, Phelan N, Egan G. Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Br J Radiol 2010; 83:290-295
2. Noel A, Thibault F. Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1990-1998 (Pubitemid 39481167)
3. Dragusin O, Breisch R, Bokou C, Beissel J. Does a flat panel detector reduce the patient radiation dose in interventional cardiology? Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139:266-270
4. Sapoval M, Pellerin O, Rehel JL, et al. Uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: optimization of the radiation dose to the patient using a flat panel detector angiography suite. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2010; 33:949-954
5. Holmes DR, Laskey WK, Wondrow MA, et al. Flat-panel detectors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: revolution or evolution-what are the issues? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 63: 324-330
6. Granfors PR, Aufrichtig R. Performance of a 41 x 41-cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. Med Phys 2000; 27:1324-1331 (Pubitemid 30416101)
7. Spahn M. Flat detectors and their clinical applications. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:1934-1947 (Pubitemid 41222902)
8. Seibert JA. Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they? Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36:173-181
9. Davies AG, 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. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:1787-1794 (Pubitemid 46909667)
10. Antonuk LE, Jee KW, El-Mohri Y, et al. Strate-gies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat-panel imagers for diagnostic x-ray applications. Med Phys 2000; 27:289-306 (Pubitemid 30117484)
11. Maolinbay M, El-Mohri Y, Antonuk LE, et al. Additive noise properties of active matrix flatpanel imagers. Med Phys 2000; 27:1841-1854 (Pubitemid 30666360)
12. Laskey W, Wondrow M, Chambers C. Fluoroscopic image quality in the film and filmless eras: a standardized comparison performed in coronary interventional facilities. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 58:383-390
13. Chida K, Saito H, Zuguchi M, et al. Does digital acquisition reduce patients' skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures: an experimental study. AJR 2004; 183:1111-1114 (Pubitemid 44185107)
14. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N, et al. Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 2004; 77:562-567 (Pubitemid 39136856)
15. Suzuki S, Furui S, Yamaguchi I, et al. Effective dose during abdominal three-dimensional imaging with a flat-panel detector. Radiology 2009; 250:545-550
16. Chida K, Inaba Y, Saito H, et al. Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector. AJR 2009; 193:1680-1685
17. Miller DL, Balter S, Schueler BA, et al. Clinical radiation management for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Radiology 2010; 257:321-332
18. Walsh SR, Cousins C, Tang TY, et al. Ionization radiation in endovascular interventions. J Endovasc Ther 2008; 15:680-687
19. Robson PM, Dai W, Shankaranarayanan A, et al. Time-resolved vessel-selective digital subtraction MR angiography of the cerebral vasculature with arterial spin labeling. Radiology 2010; 257:507-515
20. Attenberger UI, Haneder S, Morelli JN, Diehl SJ, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ. Peripheral arterial occlusive disease: evaluation of a high spatial and temporal resolution 3-T MR protocol with a low total dose of gadolinium versus conventional angiography. Radiology 2010; 257:879-887
21. Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Malkawi AH, et al. Validation of DynaCT in the morphological assessment of abdominal aortic repair for endovascular repair. J Endovasc Ther 2010; 17:183-189
22. Hatakeyama Y, Kakeda S, Ohnari N, et al. Reduction of radiation dose for cerebral angiography using flat panel detector of direct conversion type: a vascular phantom study. AJNR 2007; 28:645-650 (Pubitemid 46608600)
23. Partridge J, McGahan G, Causton S, et al. Radiation dose reduction without compromise of image quality in cardiac angiography and intervention with the use of a flat panel detector without an antiscatter grid. Heart 2006; 92:507-510
24. Suzuki S, Furui S, Yamaguchi I, et al. Entrance surface dose during three-dimensional imaging with a flat panel detector angiography system. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19:1361-1365
25. Prasan AM, Ison G, Rees DM. Radiation exposure during elective coronary angioplasty: the effect of flat-panel detection. Heart Lung Circ 2008; 17:215-219
26. Bogaert E, Bacher K, Lapere R, Thierens H. Does digital flat detector technology tip the scale towards better image quality or reduced patient dose in interventional cardiology? Eur J Radiol 2009; 72:348-353
27. Wiskirchen J, Kraemer K, König C, et al. Radiopacity of current endovascular stents: evaluation in a multiple reader phantom study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004; 15:843-852 (Pubitemid 39063224)