Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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Many image-intensifier fluoroscopy systems have been replaced by flat-panel detectors in recent years.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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 92:507–510

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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–W780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 4:541–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 58:789–794

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:645–650

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 198:946–954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 36:1670–1676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 45:235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 77:562–567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 193:1680–1685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 72:348–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 185:153–159

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–W301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 31:238–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 44:496–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:970–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 90:197–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 79:326–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Mannheim has research agreements with Siemens Healthcare Sector.

The study received financial funding from Siemens. None of the authors of the study was employee of Siemens. Measurements and data evaluation were not supported by Siemens.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany

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

Authors
  1. Meike Weis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Hagelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Theo Diehm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan O. Schoenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Wolfgang Neff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meike Weis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weis, M., Hagelstein, C., Diehm, T. et al. 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. Pediatr Radiol 46, 286–292 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3456-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3456-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation