Influence of X-ray Detector of Automatic Exposure Control Unit(AEC)on Digital Chest Radiography

Kawata, Hidemichi; Ookubo, Seiji; Hyoudou, Keiichirou; Ikematsu, Ryuuji; Tanigawa, Hitoshi; Kawamura, Seiji; Iwasawa, Toshimitsu; Nakashima, Noriyuki; Umezaki, Noriyoshi; Hayabuchi, Naofumi

doi:10.6009/jjrt.kj00003111312

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Standard radiography systems and CT scanners tend to have declining exposure, thanks to the development of automatic exposure control (AEC). [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Standard radiography AEC adjusts exposure time based on a subregion of the exposed patient area. Due to the limited cell dimensions and to the averaging of the dose measurement over the cell size, the advantage of AEC is not fully exploited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of automatic exposure control on dose and image quality: comparison between slot‐scanning and flat‐panel digital radiography systems

Boissonnat

Morichau-Beauchant²,

Reshef³

et al. 2022

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background EOSedge™* (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) is an X‐ray imaging system using automatic exposure control (AEC) with tube current modulation, in order to optimize dose deposition in patients. Purpose This study aims at characterizing EOSedge organ dose deposition in comparison to a digital radiography (DR) system and the previous EOS system (EOS‐1st generation), in relation to their respective image quality levels. Method Organ doses were measured in an anthropomorphic female adult phantom and a 5‐year‐old pediatric phantom using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters, which were carefully calibrated within the studied energy range. Organ doses were recorded on the EOSedge and the Fuji Visionary DRF (Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc, Lexington, MA). The resulting effective doses were compared to the EOS‐1st‐generation values present in the literature. Image quality assessment was carried out on end‐user images. Quantitative image quality metrics were computed for all tested modalities on a quality assurance phantom. Qualitative assessment of EOSedge image quality was based on anthropomorphic phantom acquisitions against the EOS‐1st‐generation system, and on clinical images against the tested DR system. Results For a full‐spine exam, and on the female adult phantom (respectively, the pediatric phantom), an effective dose of 92 μSv (respectively, 32 μSv) was obtained on EOSedge, and 572 μSv (respectively, 179 μSv) on the DR system; these values were compared to effective dose values of 290 μSv (respectively, 200 μSv) from the literature on EOS‐1st generation, leading to an effective dose reduction factor of 6 with respect to the DR system, and of 3–6 with respect to EOS‐1st generation. EOSedge provides the best compromise between contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) and dose, with more consistent CNR values than the other tested modalities, in a range of attenuation from 10 to 40 cm of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). Within this range, EOSedge is also comparable to DR for 10 and 20 cm of PMMA, and better than DR for 30 and 40 cm of PMMA, both in terms of spatial resolution and low‐contrast detection. The anatomical landmarks of interest in the follow‐up of spinal deformities can be detected in all tested modalities. Conclusion Results showed that EOSedge provides significant dose reduction factors for full spine imaging in both adults and children compared to the other tested modalities, without compromising image quality. We believe that this work could help raise awareness on the capabilities of modern X‐ray systems, when equipped with appropriate AEC strategies, to perform ultra‐low‐dose, long‐axis images.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Standard radiography systems and CT scanners tend to have declining exposure, thanks to the development of automatic exposure control (AEC) 15–28 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of automatic exposure control on dose and image quality: comparison between slot‐scanning and flat‐panel digital radiography systems

Boissonnat

Morichau-Beauchant²,

Reshef³

et al. 2022

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of Changing the Source-to-image Receptor Distance Parameter of Scattered X-ray Correction after Exposure on Image Quality in Portable Chest Radiography

Ijichi

Matsushima

Koga

et al. 2022

Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To validate the effects of changing the source-to-image receptor distance (SID) parameter of scattered X-ray correction after exposure on the image quality in portable chest radiography. Methods: The actual SID and tube current-time product (mAs) were varied such that the direct X-ray dose to a flat panel detector (FPD) remained constant. We created two groups as follows: Group A (with the SID parameter unchanged) and Group B (with the SID parameter changed to the actual SID after a phantom chest exposure). The image contrast ratio and standard deviation (SD) were measured on the chest radiographs for physical assessment. Observer studies were performed by seven radiological technologists. Scheffé s (Ura) paired comparison methods were performed with image contrast, noise, and overall assessment as the assessment items. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for lung nodules was performed. Results: The image contrast ratio and SD in Group A changed, whereas the changes in Group B were less than those in Group A for both these properties. The observer study with Scheffé s methods showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) for all assessment items in Group A but not in Group B. The ROC analysis did not indicate any statistically significant differences in either group. Conclusion: Changing the SID parameter of scattered X-ray correction after exposure can possibly maintain image contrast and noise in portable chest radiography if the actual SID changes.

show abstract

Influence of X-ray Detector of Automatic Exposure Control Unit(AEC)on Digital Chest Radiography

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Performance of automatic exposure control on dose and image quality: comparison between slot‐scanning and flat‐panel digital radiography systems

Performance of automatic exposure control on dose and image quality: comparison between slot‐scanning and flat‐panel digital radiography systems

Effects of Changing the Source-to-image Receptor Distance Parameter of Scattered X-ray Correction after Exposure on Image Quality in Portable Chest Radiography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About