Top

Pediatric Radiology

Published in:

01-02-2016 | Original Article

Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between an image-intensifier system and a newer-generation flat-panel detector system — technical phantom measurements and evaluation of clinical imaging in children

Authors: Meike Weis, Claudia Hagelstein, Theo Diehm, Stefan O. Schoenberg, K. Wolfgang Neff

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 2/2016

Abstract

Background

Many image-intensifier fluoroscopy systems have been replaced by flat-panel detectors in recent years.

Objective

To compare the level of contrast, image resolution and radiation dose between an image-intensifier and a newer-generation flat-panel detector system in a pediatric radiology unit.

Materials and methods

We compared two systems — a conventional image intensifier and a newer-generation flat-panel system. We measured image quality and radiation dose using a technical phantom. Additionally, we retrospectively compared age-matched fluoroscopic pediatric voiding cystourethrography (n = 15) and upper gastrointestinal investigations (n = 25).

Results

In phantom studies image contrast was equal while image resolution was higher and mean radiation dose lower using the flat-panel system (P < 0.0001). In pediatric investigations, mean dose area product was significantly reduced on the flat-panel system for upper gastrointestinal investigation (45 ± 38 μGy*m² vs. 11 ± 9 μGy*m²; P < 0.0001) and for voiding cystourethrography (18 ± 20 μGy*m² vs. 10 ± 12 μGy*m²; P = 0.04).

Conclusion

The newer flat-panel system performs at lower dose levels with equal to better image quality and therefore seems to be the more suitable technique for pediatric fluoroscopy in comparison to image-intensifier systems.

Partridge J, McGahan G, Causton S et al (2006) Radiation dose reduction without compromise of image quality in cardiac angiography and intervention with the use of a flat panel detector without an antiscatter grid. Heart 92:507–510CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Seibert JA (2006) Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they? Pediatr Radiol 36:173–181CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Hammer GP, Seidenbusch MC, Schneider K et al (2009) A cohort study of childhood cancer incidence after postnatal diagnostic X-ray exposure. Radiat Res 171:504–512CrossRefPubMed

Justino H (2006) The ALARA concept in pediatric cardiac catheterization: techniques and tactics for managing radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol 36:146–153CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Darling S, Sammer M, Chapman T et al (2011) Physician documentation of fluoroscopy time in voiding cystourethrography reports correlates with lower fluoroscopy times: a surrogate marker of patient radiation exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W777–W780CrossRefPubMed

Malekzadeh M, Bahreyni Toossi MT, Alamdaran SA et al (2012) Comparison between patient dose arising from photofluorographic and standard fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography in children with urinary tract infection [corrected]. Nephrourol Mon 4:541–544CrossRefPubMed

Nel ED, Ellis A (2012) Swallowing abnormalities in HIV infected children: an important cause of morbidity. BMC Pediatr 12:68CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Rommel N, Selleslagh M, Hoffman I et al (2014) Objective assessment of swallow function in children with suspected aspiration using pharyngeal automated impedance manometry. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 58:789–794PubMed

Baijens L, Barikroo A, Pilz W (2013) Intrarater and interrater reliability for measurements in videofluoroscopy of swallowing. Eur J Radiol 82:1683–1695CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hatakeyama Y, Kakeda S, Ohnari N et al (2007) Reduction of radiation dose for cerebral angiography using flat panel detector of direct conversion type: a vascular phantom study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:645–650PubMed

11.

Wiesinger B, Stutz A, Schmehl J et al (2012) Comparison of digital flat-panel detector and conventional angiography machines: evaluation of stent detection rates, visibility scores, and dose-area products. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:946–954CrossRefPubMed

12.

Miraglia R, Maruzzelli L, Tuzzolino F et al (2013) Radiation exposure in biliary procedures performed to manage anastomotic strictures in pediatric liver transplant recipients: comparison between radiation exposure levels using an image intensifier and a flat-panel detector-based system. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:1670–1676CrossRefPubMed

13.

Miraglia R, Maruzzelli L, Cortis K et al (2015) Comparison between radiation exposure levels using an image intensifier and a flat-panel detector-based system in image-guided central venous catheter placement in children weighing less than 10 kg. Pediatr Radiol 45:235–240CrossRefPubMed

14.

Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N et al (2004) Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 77:562–567CrossRefPubMed

15.

Chida K, Inaba Y, Saito H et al (2009) Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1680–1685CrossRefPubMed

16.

Bogaert E, Bacher K, Lapere R et al (2009) Does digital flat detector technology tip the scale towards better image quality or reduced patient dose in interventional cardiology? Eur J Radiol 72:348–353CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wiesinger B, Kirchner S, Blumenstock G et al (2013) Difference in dose area product between analog image intensifier and digital flat panel detector in peripheral angiography and the effect of BMI. Röfo 185:153–159PubMed

18.

Cohen M (2007) Are we doing enough to minimize fluoroscopic radiation exposure in children? Pediatr Radiol 37:1020–1024CrossRefPubMed

19.

Sidhu M, Coley BD, Goske MJ et al (2009) Image Gently, Step Lightly: increasing radiation dose awareness in pediatric interventional radiology. Pediatr Radiol 39:1135–1138CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sidhu M, Goske MJ, Connolly B et al (2010) Image Gently, Step Lightly: promoting radiation safety in pediatric interventional radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W299–W301CrossRefPubMed

21.

Schneider K, Krüger-Stollfuss I, Ernst G et al (2001) Paediatric fluoroscopy — a survey of children’s hospitals in Europe. I. Staffing, frequency of fluoroscopic procedures and investigation technique. Pediatr Radiol 31:238–246CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hsi RS, Dearn J, Dean M et al (2013) Effective and organ specific radiation doses from videourodynamics in children. J Urol 190:1364–1369CrossRefPubMed

23.

Riccabona M, Lobo ML, Willi U et al (2014) ESPR uroradiology task force and ESUR Paediatric Work Group — Imaging recommendations in paediatric uroradiology, part VI: childhood renal biopsy and imaging of neonatal and infant genital tract: minutes from the task force session at the annual ESPR Meeting 2012 in Athens on childhood renal biopsy and imaging neonatal genitalia. Pediatr Radiol 44:496–502CrossRefPubMed

24.

Tompane T, Leong CW, Bush R et al (2013) Appropriateness of radiology procedures performed in children with gastrointestinal symptoms and conditions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:970–977CrossRefPubMed

25.

Hiorns MP, Ryan MM (2006) Current practice in paediatric videofluoroscopy. Pediatr Radiol 36:911–919CrossRefPubMed

26.

Schneider K, Perlmutter N, Arthur R et al (2000) Micturition cystourethrography in paediatric patients in selected children’s hospitals in Europe: evaluation of fluoroscopy technique, image quality criteria and dose. Radiat Prot Dosim 90:197–201CrossRef

27.

Hiorns MP, Saini A, Marsden PJ (2006) A review of current local dose-area product levels for paediatric fluoroscopy in a tertiary referral centre compared with national standards. Why are they so different? Br J Radiol 79:326–330CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between an image-intensifier system and a newer-generation flat-panel detector system — technical phantom measurements and evaluation of clinical imaging in children
Authors: Meike Weis
Claudia Hagelstein
Theo Diehm
Stefan O. Schoenberg
K. Wolfgang Neff
Publication date: 01-02-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Pediatric Radiology / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3456-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between an image-intensifier system and a newer-generation flat-panel detector system — technical phantom measurements and evaluation of clinical imaging in children

Abstract

Background

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Hermes

Inter-radiologist agreement for CT scoring of pediatric splenic injuries and effect on an established clinical practice guideline

Standardization of patellofemoral morphology in the pediatric knee

Fetal and neonatal imaging minisymposium – 2015 executive summary

Validation of adult height prediction based on automated bone age determination in the Paris Longitudinal Study of healthy children

Radiographic signs of non-venous placement of intended central venous catheters in children