HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2291020717v1 229/1/140    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ludwig, K. Articles by Heindel, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ludwig, K. Articles by Heindel, W.

Lumbar Spine Radiography: Digital Flat-Panel Detector versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems in Monkeys as a Pediatric Model¹

¹ From the Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Muenster, Germany. Received June 14, 2002; revision requested August 9; final revision received February 9, 2003; accepted February 18. Address correspondence to K.L., Section of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Schlierbacher Landstr 200a, D-69118 Heidelberg, Germany (e-mail: karl.ludwig@ok.uni-heidelberg.de).

PURPOSE: To assess image quality and exposure dose requirements of a flat-panel detector system versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems for radiographic depiction of the lumbar spine in Cynomolgus monkeys as a pediatric model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty Cynomolgus monkeys underwent anteroposterior radiography of the lumbar spine. The size and weight of these monkeys are comparable to those of infants 3–4 months of age. Images were acquired with speed class 400 screen-film, flat-panel, and storage-phosphor systems with identical exposure dose. All other conditions were matched exactly. Additional images were acquired with the flat-panel and storage-phosphor systems at exposure doses equivalent to speed classes 800 and 1600. All images were obtained at 66 kVp without antiscatter grid. Images were assessed independently by three radiologists for visibility of 60 anatomic structures by using a five-point confidence scale. Scores were calculated for the seven combinations of imaging mode and exposure dose and were compared by using the Friedman test.

RESULTS: Scores were 1.70 (speed class 400), 1.97 (speed class 800), and 2.27 (speed class 1600) for the flat-panel system; 2.50 (speed class 400) for the screen-film system; and 2.58 (speed class 400), 2.77 (speed class 800), and 3.13 (speed class 1600) for the storage-phosphor system. Scores for the flat-panel system at speed classes 400 and 800 were significantly lower (indicating better visibility) than those of the screen-film and storage-phosphor systems (P < .05).

CONCLUSION: The flat-panel system is superior to screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in lumbar spine radiography in monkeys. With the flat-panel system, exposure dose can be reduced by 75% without loss in image quality.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Animals • Experimental study • Flat panel detector • Radiography, comparative studies • Radiography, digital, 33.12 • Radiography, in infants and children, 33.11, 33.12 • Radiography, storage phosphor, 33.12 • Spine, radiography, 33.11, 33.12

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. L. Kleinman, D. Zurakowski, K. J. Strauss, R. H. Cleveland, J. M. Perez-Rosello, D. P. Nichols, K. H. Zou, and P. K. Kleinman Detection of Simulated Inflicted Metaphyseal Fractures in a Fetal Pig Model: Image Optimization and Dose Reduction with Computed Radiography Radiology, May 1, 2008; 247(2): 381 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Rapp-Bernhardt, T. M. Bernhardt, H. Lenzen, R. Esseling, F. W. Roehl, M. Schiborr, I. Theobald-Hormann, and W. Heindel Experimental Evaluation of a Portable Indirect Flat-Panel Detector for the Pediatric Chest: Comparison with Storage Phosphor Radiography at Different Exposures by Using a Chest Phantom Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 485 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]