European Spine Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 752–756 | Cite as

Prospective randomized comparison of radiation exposure from full spine radiographs obtained in three different techniques

  • Torsten KlubaEmail author
  • Jürgen Schäfer
  • Tobias Hahnfeldt
  • Thomas Niemeyer
Original Article


Problem: The purpose of the investigation was a comparison of two different digital X-ray techniques with conventional standing full spine films. Evaluation of dose area product, image quality and inter-observer error of Cobb-angle measurement in patients with scoliosis and kyphoscoliosis were studied.

Methods: A consecutive series of 150 patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Patients in group 1 (n=53) received a conventional standing postero-anterior full spine radiograph. All films were evaluated on the light box. Patients in group 2 (n=48) received a X-ray using the digital storage phosphor plate system (CR). For group 3 (n=49) digital pulsed fluoroscopy was used. In groups 2 and 3 images were exported to a picture archiving and communicating system (PACS) workstation and viewed on a monitor (Siemens SMM 21140P, Germany). Dose area product measurements were performed in all three groups (Diamentor-M, PTW, Freiburg). Three experienced investigators independently reviewed all pictures. Pedicles and endplates were counted. Cobb-angles of the main curves were measured.

Results: The mean dose area product was 97.0 cGy cm² (37.0–380.0 cGy cm²) for conventional films, 31.5 cGy cm² (6.0–66.0 cGy cm²) for CR imaging and 5.0 cGy cm² (1.0–29.0 cGy cm²) for digital fluoroscopy. The differences of Cobb-angle measurements were not significantly different for the three methods. Differences in the count of pedicles and endplates between the investigators were significantly lower for the conventional film as an indicator for the best detail presentation.

Conclusion: A significant reduction in dose area product is possible with modern digital X-ray methods. The inter-observer error of Cobb-angle measurement is not significantly altered. The detail information is decreased in comparison to conventional films.


X-ray AIS Dose area product Digital Exposure 


  1. 1.
    Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG (1990) Measurements of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs: intraobserver and interoberserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg 72:328–333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geijer H, Beckmann KW, Jonsson B, Andersson T, Persliden J (2001) Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: initial evaluation. Radiology 218:402–410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geijer H, Verdonck B, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J (2003) Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: radiation dose optimization. Eur Radiol 13:543–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gross C, Gross M, Kuschner S (1983) Error analysis of scoliosis curvature measurement. Bull Hosp Joint Dis Orthop Inst 43:171–177Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hellström G, Irstam L, Nachemson A (1983) Reduction of radiation dose in radiologic examination of patients with scoliosis. Spine 8:28–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy AR, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Hanley JA, Poitras B (1996) Reducing the lifetime risk of cancer from spinal radiographs among people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 21:1540–1547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during groth. J Bone Joint Surg 66:1061–1071PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nash CL Jr, Gregg EC, Brown RH, Pillai K (1979) Risks of exposure to x-rays in patients undergoing long term treatment for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 61:371–374PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torsten Kluba
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jürgen Schäfer
    • 2
  • Tobias Hahnfeldt
    • 1
  • Thomas Niemeyer
    • 1
  1. 1. University TübingenDepartment of Orthopaedics TübingenGermany
  2. 2.University TübingenDepartment of RadiologyTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations