Introduction

  • Luís Lança
  • Augusto Silva
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The discovery of X-rays in 1895 by Roentgen has fostered new study methods and techniques in the field of radiology. Until today radiology has been continuously evolving, driven by breakthrough technological developments and is now extended to a broad spectrum of medical imaging processes.

Keywords

X-ray Roentgen Radiology Technological development Imaging Process Film 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. ICRP Publication 73. Annals of the ICRP 26; 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Annals of the ICRP 34; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nyathi T, Chirwa TF, van der Merwe DG. A survey of digital radiography practice in four South African teaching hospitals: an illuminative study. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2010;6:e5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyahara J, Kato H. Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiology. 1983;148:833–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busch HP. Image quality and dose management for digital radiography—final report. In: DIMOND3. European Commission. Available at http://www.dimond3.org/European (2004).
  7. 7.
    Kotter E, Langer M. Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2562–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strotzer M, Völk M, Fründ R, Hamer O, Zorger N, Feuerbach S. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:169–71.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Völk M, Hamer O, Feuerbach S, Strotzer M. Dose reduction in skeletal and chest radiography using a large-area flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon and thallium-doped cesium iodide: technical background, basic image quality parameters and review of the literature. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:827–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chotas H, Ravin C. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel X-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy. Radiology. 2001;218:679–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Food and Drug Administration. Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. US FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Available at www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm (2010).
  12. 12.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation: safety guide. Available at http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1117_scr.pdf (2002).
  13. 13.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Optimization of the radiological protection of patients undergoing radiography. Fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Available at http://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1423_web.pdf (2004).
  14. 14.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Annex D—medical radiation exposures. New York, NY: UNSCEAR; 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes. Volume I: Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annexes A and B; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260. Available at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/eur16260.pdf (1996).
  17. 17.
    Álmen A, Tingberg A, Mattsson S, Besjakov J, Kheddache S, Lanhede B, Mansson L, Zankl M. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:1192–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doherty P, O’Leary D, Brennan P. Do CEC guidelines under-utilize the full potential of increasing kVp as a dose-reducing tool? Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1992–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Álmen A, Tingberg A, Besjakov J, Mattsson S. The use of reference image criteria in X-ray diagnostics: an application for the optimization of lumbar spine radiographs. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1561–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu X, Shaw C. A-Si:H/CsI (TI) flat-panel versus computed radiography for chest imaging applications: image quality metrics measurement. Med Phys. 2004;31:98–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peer S, Neitzel LU, Giacomuzzi S, Pechlaner S, Kunzel K, Peer R, Gassner E, Steingruber I, Gaber O, Jaschke W. Direct digital radiography versus storage phosphor radiography in the detection of wrist fractures. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:258–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hosch W, Fink C, Radelef A, Kampschulte A, Kaufmann G, Hansmann J. Radiation dose reduction in chest radiography using a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:902–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garmer M, Hennigs S, Jager H, Schrick F, De Loo T, Jacobs A, Hanusch A, Christmann A, Mathias K. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:75–80.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regulla DF, Eder H. Patient exposures in medical X-ray imaging in Europe. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;14:11C–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnston DA, Brennan PC. Reference dose levels for patients undergoing common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Irish hospitals. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:396–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carroll EM, Brennan PC. Radiation doses for barium enema and barium meal examinations in Ireland: potential diagnostic reference levels. Br J Radiol. 2003;76:393–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF, Hobbs BB, Mettler FA, Pizzutiello RJ, Schueler BA, Strauss KJ, Orhan H, Suleiman OH, Yaffe MJ. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology. 2005;235:354–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. The Lancet. 2004;363:345–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lança L, Silva A, Alves E, Serranheira F, Correia M. Evaluation of exposure parameters in plain radiography: a comparative study with European guidelines. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;129:316–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lança L, Silva A, Alves E, Serranheira F, Correia M. Identificação dos parâmetros técnicos de exposição em exames radiológicos convencionais na região de Lisboa: uma comparação com a referência europeia. Acta Radiológica Portuguesa. 2007;75:53–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR practice guideline for general radiography. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/dx/general_radiography.aspx (2008).
  32. 32.
    European Commission. Optimization of protection in the medical uses of radiation. EUR 19793. Available at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/protection_radiation.pdf (2002).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís Lança
    • 1
  • Augusto Silva
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento das Ciências e Tecnologias das Radiações e Biossinais da SaúdeEscola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa (ESTeSL) - Instituto Politécnico de LisboaLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de Electrónica, Telecomunicações e InformáticaUniversidade de AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations