2002RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden VerfahrenRequires access

Vergleich der digitalen Flachdetektorradiographie mit der digitalen Lumineszenzradiographie bei Urogrammen

M. Zähringer, Karl-Friedrich Kamm, B. Krug, Wiebke Braun, S. Coburger, Guido Winnekendonk, Karsten Krüger, Georg Haupt, K. Lackner

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology the i. v. urograms of patients who had been examined with computed radiography and digital flat-panel radiography were compared regarding image quality. METHODS: 50 patients who underwent clinically indicated i. v. urography were examined with digital flat-panel radiography and computed radiography. In order to avoid unnecessary double exposure to X-rays, patients were examined either by flat-panel or computed radiography before injection of contrast media. Each further clinically indicated exposure after administration of contrast media was done by alternating the other examination technique. The digital images were compared by 4 radiologists regarding image quality for the detection of defined anatomic structures. RESULTS: Digital flat-panel radiography showed an image quality of the liver, spleen and both kidneys that was similar to computed radiography. The urinary tract, lumbar spine, pelvis and psoas muscle were significantly better visible on flat-panel radiography images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to computed radiography there is no loss of image information by using digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology. On the contrary, some anatomic structures on abdominal survey images show better image quality. In conclusion, digital flat-panel radiography has the potential to replace computed radiography in uroradiologic examinations.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology the i. v. urograms of patients who had been examined with computed radiography and digital flat-panel radiography were compared regarding image quality. METHODS: 50 patients who underwent clinically indicated i. v. urography were examined with digital flat-panel radiography and computed radiography. In order to avoid unnecessary double exposure to X-rays, patients were examined either by flat-panel or computed radiography before injection of contrast media. Each further clinically indicated exposure after administration of contrast media was done by alternating the other examination technique. The digital images were compared by 4 radiologists regarding image quality for the detection of defined anatomic structures. RESULTS: Digital flat-panel radiography showed an image quality of the liver, spleen and both kidneys that was similar to computed radiography. The urinary tract, lumbar spine, pelvis and psoas muscle were significantly better visible on flat-panel radiography images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to computed radiography there is no loss of image information by using digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology. On the contrary, some anatomic structures on abdominal survey images show better image quality. In conclusion, digital flat-panel radiography has the potential to replace computed radiography in uroradiologic examinations.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology the i. v. urograms of patients who had been examined with computed radiography and digital flat-panel radiography were compared regarding image quality. METHODS: 50 patients who underwent clinically indicated i. v. urography were examined with digital flat-panel radiography and computed radiography. In order to avoid unnecessary double exposure to X-rays, patients were examined either by flat-panel or computed radiography before injection of contrast media. Each further clinically indicated exposure after administration of contrast media was done by alternating the other examination technique. The digital images were compared by 4 radiologists regarding image quality for the detection of defined anatomic structures. RESULTS: Digital flat-panel radiography showed an image quality of the liver, spleen and both kidneys that was similar to computed radiography. The urinary tract, lumbar spine, pelvis and psoas muscle were significantly better visible on flat-panel radiography images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to computed radiography there is no loss of image information by using digital flat-panel radiography in uroradiology. On the contrary, some anatomic structures on abdominal survey images show better image quality. In conclusion, digital flat-panel radiography has the potential to replace computed radiography in uroradiologic examinations.

Key concepts: Radiography, Digital radiography, Computed radiography, Medicine, Flat panel detector, Nuclear medicine, Flat panel, Image quality

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Vergleich der digitalen Flachdetektorradiographie mit der digitalen Lumineszenzradiographie bei Urogrammen — Research Paper | ScholarLens