Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative evaluation of an II based and a flat panel based cardiovascular fluoroscopy system within a clinical environment

  • Scientific Papers
  • Published:
Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The image quality and dose parameters from a 2004 Siemens Axiom Artis dBC cardiac biplane with flat panel detector were evaluated and compared to similar parameters evaluated for a 1977 Toshiba DPF 2000A biplane cardiac unit with a conventional image intensifier. Image quality assessment was performed with the Westmead test object; using solid water as a patient equivalent absorber. The patient dose comparison of the two systems is based on dose area product meter readings for 1512 patient cases recorded over 6 months following installation of the Siemens flat panel digital unit. The image quality results indicate that: (a) high contrast resolution was better with the digital flat panel unit, (b) low contrast resolution is similar between systems, and (c) the threshold contrast of the flat panel system is the same or inferior to that of the image intensifier system. Input dose to the surface of the flat panel detector showed a strong dependence on field size, similar to the behaviour of image intensifier system. For the most common clinical procedure — Left Heart Study via Judkins-the average total dose area product reading was 64.0 Gy-cm2 against 67.7 Gy-cm2 for the digital and conventional units respectively (p=0.27) indicating no significant difference in dose performance between the two x-ray machines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chotas, H. G., Dobbins III, J. T. and Ravin, C. E.,Principles of digital radiography with large -area, electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics, Radiol., 210:595–599, 1999.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Granfors, P. R. and Aufrichtg, R.,Performance of a 41 × 41-cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiography imaging applications, Med. Phys., 27:1324–1332, 2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bernhardt, U. R., Roehl, F. W., Gibbs, R. C., Schmidl, H., Krause, U. W. and Bernhardt, T. M.,Flat panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings, Radiol., 227:484–492, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Odogba, J., Kump, K., Xue, P. and Uppaluri, R.,Performance assessment of indirect flat panel DR systems, Med. Phys., 30:1424, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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., 31:1166–1175, 2004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Granfors, P. R., Albagli, D., Tkaczyk, J. E., Aufrichtig, R., Netel, H., Brunst, G., Boudry, J. and Luo, D.,Performance of a flat panel cardiac detector, Proc. SPIE, 4320:77–84, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Granfors, P. R., Aufrichtg, R., Possin, G. E., Giambattista, B. W., Huang, Z. S., Liu, J. and Ma, B.,Performance of a 41 × 41 cm 2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector designed for angiographic and R&F imaging applications, Med. Phys., 30:2715–2726, 2003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Srinivas, Y. and Wilson, D. L.,Image quality evaluation of flat panel and image intensifier digital magnification in x-ray fluoroscopy, Med. Phys., 29:1611–1621, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shi, Z.,Performance testing of the flat panel detector in cardiovascular imaging, Med. Phys., 30:1424, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Guibelaide, E., Vano, E., Vaquero, F. and Gonzalez, L.,Influence of x-ray pulse parameters on the image quality for moving objects in digital cardiac imaging, Med. Phys., 31:2819–2825, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Richard, S., Siewerdsen, J., Jaffrey, D., Moseley, D. and Bakhtiar, B.,Incorporation of anatomical noise in generalized DQE analysis of advanced flat-panel detector-based imaging system, Med. Phys., 31:1810, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stanescu, T., Steciw, S. and Fallone, B. G.,Sensitivity reduction in A-Se radiation detectors, Med. Phys., 31:1810, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nickoloff, E.,Flat panel fluoroscopy acceptance testing and quality control, Med. Phys., 31:1835, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Liu, X. and Shaw, C. C.,a-Si:H/CsI(Tl) flat-panel vs. computed radiography for chest imaging applications: image quality metrics measurement, Med. Phys., 31:96–110, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lindskoug, B. A.,Reference man in diagnostic radiology dosimetry, Rad. Prot. Dosim., 43:111–114, 1992.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. ICRP,Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures, Report No. 85, 2000.

  17. ICRP,Radiation and your patient: A guide for medical practitioners, Supporting Guidance 2, 2001.

  18. Theocharopoulos, N., Perisinakis, K. and Damilakis, J.,Composition of four methods for assessing patient effective dose from radiological examinations, Med. Phys., 29:2070–2079, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kovoor, P., Ricciardello, M., Collins, L., Uther, J. B. and Ross, D. L.,Risk to patients from radiation associated with radiofrequency ablation for supraventricular tachycardia, Circulation, 98:1534–1540, 1998.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thwaites, J. H. and Rattray, P.,A Patient Dose Survey in a Cardiac Angiographic Suite, Aust. J Med., 28:597–603, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vano, E., Gonzalez, L., Ten, J. I., Fernandez, J. M., Guibelalde, E. and Macaya, C.,Skin dose and dose-area product values for interventional cardiology procedures, B.J.R., 74:48–55, 2001.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ricciardello, M. and McLean, D.,Assessment of Fluoroscopic Systems with a simple test object, Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med., 18:104–113, 1995.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Constantinou, C., Attix, F. and Paliwal, B. R.,A solid water phantom material for radiotherapy x-ray and Γ-ray beam calibrations, Med. Phys., 9:436–441, 1982.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. AAPM,Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems, Report No. TG18 (version 9), 2002.

  25. NSW EPA,Radiation guideline 6 — Registration requirements & industry best practice for ionising radiation apparatus used in diagnostic imaging Part 6 — Test protocols for parts 2–5, 2nd ed., NSW Environment Protection Authority, Sydney South-1232, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Smit Rontgen,What a difference a grid makes, http://emea.dunlee.com/europe/content/pdfs/BR_SmitRoentge n.pdf

  27. AS/NZS,Medical electrical equipment- Dose area product meters Report No. AS/NZS 4957:2002, 2002.

  28. Crawley, M. T., Mutch, S., Nyekiova, M., Reddy, C. and Weatherburn, H.,Calibration frequency of dose-area product meters, B.J.R., 74:259–261, 2001.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Harrison, D., Ricciardello, M. and Collins, L.,Evaluation of radiation dose and risk to the patient from coronary angiography, Aust. N.Z. J. Med., 28:597–603, 1998.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Campbell, M. J. and Machin, D.,Medical Statistics: A commonsense approach, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Le Heron, J. C.,Estimation of effective dose to the patient during medical x-ray examinations from measurements of the dose-area product, Phys. Med. Biol., 37:2117–2126, 1992.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stanley, T. A.,Estimations of effective dose to angiographic patients, Masters degree thesis, University of Wollongong, 2005.

  33. Petoussi, N., Zankl, M., Drexler, G., Panzer, W. and Regulla, D.,Calculation of backscatter factors for diagnostic radiology using Monte Carlo methods, Phys. Med. Biol., 43:2237–2250, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical PhysicsDepartment, Westmead Hospital, Cnr. Darcy & Hawkesbury Rd, 2145, Westmead, NSW, Australia

    R. K. Grewal & I. D. McLean

Authors
  1. R. K. Grewal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. D. McLean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. K. Grewal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grewal, R.K., McLean, I.D. Comparative evaluation of an II based and a flat panel based cardiovascular fluoroscopy system within a clinical environment. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 28, 151 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178708

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178708

Key words

Search

Navigation