Digital Skeletal Radiography

  • H. Pettersson
Conference paper
Part of the Syllabus book series (SYLLABUS)


Digital radiography may be defined as an imaging system in which conventional X-rays are used, but in which conventional film-screen combinations are replaced by radiation detectors connected to computer systems to produce the image. Today, digital radiography for examination of the musculoskeletal system is routine in many departments. The systems used most for such digital radiography are based on imaging plates, using phosphor storage screens, but there are also several other systems developed or under development in which the imaging plate is no longer needed.


Digital Radiography System Skeletal Radiology Phosphor Storage Screen Apparent Bone Density Digital Radiographic System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pettersson H (1992) Digital skeletal radiography. In: Resnick D, Pettersson H (eds) Skeletal radiology. Merit Communications, London, pp 1–8 (NICER series on diagnostic imaging)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schmidt Ch, Deininger HK (1990) Die digitale Bildverstärkerradiographie: Ein neues Konzept für die trau-matologische Röntgendiagnostik. ROFO 152:51–55Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pettersson H, Aspelin P, Boijsen E, Herrlin K, Egund N (1988) Digital radiography of the spine, large bones and joints using stimulable phosphos. Early clinical experience. Acta Radiol 29:267–271Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jónsson Á, Borg A, Hannesson P et al (1994) Film-screen vs. digital radiography in rheumatoid arthritis of the hand: a ROC analysis. Acta Radiol 35:311–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jónsson, A, Hannesson P, Herrlin K et al (1995) Computed vs. film-screen magnification radiography of fingers in hyperparathyroidism. Acta Radiol 36:290–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scott WW Jr, Rosenbaum JE, Ackerman SJ et al (1993) Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretation. Radiology 187:811–815PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson AJ, Mann FA, West OC, McEnery KW, Murphy WA Jr (1994) Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor radiography with a hybrid cassette. Radiology 193:419–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kreipke DL, Silver DI, Tarer RD, Braunstein EM (1990) Readability of cervical spine imaging: digital versus film/-screen radiographs. Comput Med Imaging Graph 14:119–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prokop M, Galanski M, Oestmann JW et al (1990) Storage phosphor versus screen-film radiography: effect of varying of exposure parameters and unsharp mask filtering on the de-tectability of cortical bone defects. Radiology 177:109–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wegryn SA, Piraino DW, Richmond BJ et al (1990) Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography: an observer performance study. Radiology 175:225–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson AJ, Hodge JC (1995) Digitized radiography in skeletal trauma: performance comparison between a digital workstation and the original film images. Radiology 196:565–568PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia, Milano 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Pettersson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity HospitalLundSweden

Personalised recommendations