Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Upgraded Analog Radiographic Systems Using the Contrast Detail Radiography (CDRAD) Phantom

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Student, Department of Technology of Radiology, School of Paramedicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Technology of Radiology, School of Paramedicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Upgrading analog X-ray systems to digital systems will greatly reduce costs, but there are conflicting opinions on this subject. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare image quality and radiation dose in different upgraded analog radiography systems with a digital radiography system.Methods: Image quality and radiation dose of five upgraded analog radiography systems were compared with a digital radiography system using the Contrast Detail Radiography (CDRAD) phantom. Quality of images were independently evaluated on a workstation using a quantitative factor Inverse image quality figure (IQFinv) by three observers. Variations of IQFinv values were compared as a function of the Incident Air Kerma (IAK) parameter for different radiographic systems.Findings: In a fixed IAK (1000 micrograms), the highest IQFinv was for upgraded analog radiography system number 4 (4.97) and the lowest IQFinv was for upgraded analog radiography system number 1 (3.61) (P = 0.001). The quality of images obtained with the upgraded analog radiography systems number 4 and 5 were better than ones of digital radiography.Conclusion: If upgraded analog radiography systems can produce high quality images with low radiation dose compared to digital radiographic systems, the imaging departments is not needed to be spend a lot of money for replacing them with digital radiography systems.

Keywords

References

  1. Sousany S, Chaparian A, Rajaei R. Assessment of digital radiography awareness among the radiographers occupied in Isfahan City, Iran. J Isfahan Med Sch 2019; 36(506): 1450-6. [In Persian].
  2. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2011.
  3. Karimizarchi H, Chaparian A. Estimating risk of exposure induced cancer death in patients undergoing computed tomography pulmonary angiography. Radioprotection 2017; 52(2): 81-6.
  4. Kaheni H, Chaparian A, Nafisi-Moghadam R, Hamzian N. Assessment of image quality and radiation dose in some models of digital radiography systems – A Pehamed FLUORAD A + D phantom study. Radioprotection 2018; 53(2): 139-44.
  5. Lu ZF, Nickoloff EL, So JC, Dutta AK. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003; 4(1): 91-8.
  6. Al Khalifah K, Brindhaban A. Comparison between conventional radiography and digital radiography for various kVp and mAs settings using a pelvic phantom. Radiography 2004; 10(2): 119-25.
  7. Kara O, Tokgoz N. Upgrading of the existing analog radiography system to digital and comparison of both systems. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science 2018; 6(1): 79-85.
  8. Tung CJ, Tsai HY, Shi MY, Huang TT, Yang CH, Chen IJ. A phantom study of image quality versus radiation dose for digital radiography. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 2007; 580(1): 602-5.
  9. Bacher K, Smeets P, Vereecken L, De HA, Duyck P, De MR, et al. Image quality and radiation dose on digital chest imaging: Comparison of amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium flat-panel systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187(3): 630-7.
  10. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181(4): 923-9.
  11. Fischbach F, Ricke J, Freund T, Werk M, Spors B, Baumann C, et al. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: Assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest Radiol 2002; 37(11): 609-14.
  12. Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Liu X, Lemacks MR, Thompson SK. Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems--a contrast-detail phantom study. Med Phys 2001; 28(11): 2328-35.
  13. Yvert M, Diallo A, Bessou P, Rehel JL, Lhomme E, Chateil JF. Radiography of scoliosis: Comparative dose levels and image quality between a dynamic flat-panel detector and a slot-scanning device (EOS system). Diagn Interv Imaging 2015; 96(11): 1177-88.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 37, Issue 547 - Serial Number 547
September and October 2020
Pages 1169-1175

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 October 2019
  • Revise Date: 26 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics