Abstract.
The imaging performance of a recently developed digital flat-panel detector system was compared with conventional screen-film imaging in an observer preference study. In total, 34 image pairs of various regions of the skeleton were obtained in 24 patients; 30 image pairs were included in the study. The conventional images were acquired with 250- and 400-speed screen-film combinations, using the standard technique of our department. Within hours, the digital images were obtained using identical exposure parameters. The digital system employed a large-area (43×43 cm) flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon (Trixell Pixium 4600), integrated in a Bucky table. Six radiologists independently evaluated the image pairs with respect to image latitude, soft tissue rendition, rendition of the periosteal and enosteal border of cortical bone, rendition of cancellous bone and the visibility of potentially present pathological changes, using a subjective five-point scale. The digital images were rated significantly (p=0.001) better than the screen-film images with respect to soft tissue rendition and image latitude. Also the rendition of the cancellous bone and the periosteal and enosteal border of the cortical bone was rated significantly (p=0.05) better for the flat-panel detector. The visibility of pathological lesions was equivalent; only large-area sclerotic lesions (n=2) were seen superiorly on screen-film images. The new digital flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon appears to be at least equivalent to conventional screen-film combinations for skeletal examinations, and in most respects even superior.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Electronic Publication
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hamers, S., Freyschmidt, J. & Neitzel, U. Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics. Eur Radiol 11, 1753–1759 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300100830
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300100830