Fluoroscopes and Fluoroscopy

Chamberlain, W. Edward

doi:10.1148/38.4.383

Cited by 58 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, with the panel intensifier, the eye is operating at a much lower light level than it is with the television system, and the performance of the whole system (including the radiologist) is thus limited to a large extent by the limitations of the human eye at such light levels (despite the fact that dark adaptation is unnecessary). The situation is reminiscent of that obtaining in traditional fluoroscopy (Chamberlain, 1942;Sturm and Morgan, 1949); indeed, it will be shown below that the performance of the panel intensifier lies between that of traditional fluoroscopy and that of modern television fluoroscopy.…”

Section: A Physical Assessment Of the Imaging Performance Of A Panel-mentioning

confidence: 93%

A physical assessment of the imaging performance of a panel-type X-ray image intensifier

Hay¹,

Cowen²

1981

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of a commercial panel-type X-ray image intensifier has been investigated by physical methods, both objective and subjective. The objective measurements show that the manufacturer's claims are justified, except perhaps in regard to contrast loss. The subjective measurements reveal that the conversion factor ("gain") of the device is such that dark-adaptation is not necessary, though best results are obtained in a nearly dark room. Hence the device confers a significant advantage, both in information and in dose to the patient, over traditional fluoroscopy. However, the conversion factor is nearly three orders of magnitude smaller than that of a conventional X-ray image-intensifier television system. Therefore, at modern fluoroscopic exposure rates, the eye is operating at light levels at which its own deficiencies set a limit to the perceptible information. To equal the performance of modern fluoroscopy the exposure rate to the intensifier must be increased to about 20 times the value customary in modern fluoroscopy. This can be done only by increasing the X-ray factors (kV and mA), resulting in a corresponding increase in dose to the patient of about one order of magnitude. Such an increase is in many circumstance unacceptable.

show abstract

Section: A Physical Assessment Of the Imaging Performance Of A Panel-mentioning

confidence: 93%

A physical assessment of the imaging performance of a panel-type X-ray image intensifier

Hay¹,

Cowen²

1981

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need for image intensification to overcome the limitations of the human visual system under conditions of low light levels typical of early fluoroscopy in terms of lack of acuity and dark adaptation was first described by Chamberlain [ 3 ]. The technology to meet these needs, the II, was initially developed by Coltman [ 4 ].…”

Section: Image Intensifier Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they?

Seibert

2006

Pediatr Radiol

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventional and fluoroscopic imaging procedures for pediatric patients are becoming more prevalent because of the less-invasive nature of these procedures compared to alternatives such as surgery. Flat-panel X-ray detectors (FPD) for fluoroscopy are a new technology alternative to the image intensifier/TV (II/TV) digital system that has been in use for more than two decades. Two major FPD technologies have been implemented, based on indirect conversion of X-rays to light (using an X-ray scintillator) and then to proportional charge (using a photodiode), or direct conversion of X-rays into charge (using a semiconductor material) for signal acquisition and digitization. These detectors have proved very successful for high-exposure interventional procedures but lack the image quality of the II/ TV system at the lowest exposure levels common in fluoroscopy. The benefits for FPD image quality include lack of geometric distortion, little or no veiling glare, a uniform response across the field-of-view, and improved ergonomics with better patient access. Better detective quantum efficiency indicates the possibility of reducing the patient dose in accordance with ALARA principles. However, first-generation FPD devices have been implemented with less than adequate acquisition flexibility (e.g., lack of tableside controls/information, inability to easily change protocols) and the presence of residual signals from previous exposures, and additional cost of equipment and long-term maintenance have been serious impediments to purchase and implementation. Technological advances of second generation and future hybrid FPD systems should solve many current issues. The answer to the question "how much better are they?" is "significantly better", and they are certainly worth consideration for replacement or new implementation of an imaging suite for pediatric fluoroscopy.

show abstract

“…Until HECHT'S work on the physiology of vision stimulated CHAMBERLAIN (1942) there was little attention given by radiologists to advances in the theory of optics, or of photographic theory. ROSE'S contributions to the quantum theory of vision added impetus.…”

Section: Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiological Reflections on Image Quality

Gm¹,

He²,

Bj³

1964

Acta Radiologica. Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluoroscopes and Fluoroscopy

Cited by 58 publications

References 17 publications

A physical assessment of the imaging performance of a panel-type X-ray image intensifier

A physical assessment of the imaging performance of a panel-type X-ray image intensifier

Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they?

Radiological Reflections on Image Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About