PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16862412

Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they?

Abstract

Interventional and fluoroscopic imaging procedures for pediatric patients are becoming more prevalent because of the less-invasive nature of these procedures compared to alternatives such as surgery. Flat-panel X-ray detectors (FPD) for fluoroscopy are a new technology alternative to the image intensifier/TV (II/TV) digital system that has been in use for more than two decades. Two major FPD technologies have been implemented, based on indirect conversion of X-rays to light (using an X-ray scintillator) and then to proportional charge (using a photodiode), or direct conversion of X-rays into charge (using a semiconductor material) for signal acquisition and digitization. These detectors have proved very successful for high-exposure interventional procedures but lack the image quality of the II/TV system at the lowest exposure levels common in fluoroscopy. The benefits for FPD image quality include lack of geometric distortion, little or no veiling glare, a uniform response across the field-of-view, and improved ergonomics with better patient access. Better detective quantum efficiency indicates the possibility of reducing the patient dose in accordance with ALARA principles. However, first-generation FPD devices have been implemented with less than adequate acquisition flexibility (e.g., lack of tableside controls/information, inability to easily change protocols) and the presence of residual signals from previous exposures, and additional cost of equipment and long-term maintenance have been serious impediments to purchase and implementation. Technological advances of second generation and future hybrid FPD systems should solve many current issues. The answer to the question "how much better are they?" is "significantly better", and they are certainly worth consideration for replacement or new implementation of an imaging suite for pediatric fluoroscopy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Anthony Seibert. 2006. Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they?. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-006-0208-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Patient dose measurements in diagnostic radiology procedures in Korea.

This study is the first nationwide investigation aimed at estimating the patient dose for radiographic examinations in Korea including gastrointestinal studies, computed tomography and mammography. The survey data from 161 hospitals and the dose data from 32 hospitals were analysed. The third quartile entrance surface dose, dose area product (DAP), weighted CT dose index (CTDIw) and mean glandular dose (MGD) were reported. All the estimated doses were less than the stated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reference levels for radiographic examinations. However, DAPs for the fluoroscopic examinations had higher dose values than the IAEA reference levels. In addition, the CTDIw and MGD were lower than the IAEA reference levels.

Body Burden↗

The study of new calibration features in the Harshaw TLD system.

The Harshaw TLD system has three key calibration procedures: the Reader, the Dosemeter and the Algorithm. These functions must be properly calibrated for the system to achieve the optimum results. For the conventional reader and dosemeter calibration, Harshaw TLD recommends a pre-fade and a post-fade of 24-48 h when calibrating the system for LiF:Mg,Ti type dosemeter. It is also recommended that keeping the fade time consistent is important to maintain the quality of the system performance. In recent years, new calibration features have been introduced into the Harshaw TLD models 6600 and 8800 operating systems. These new features are Auto Calibration, Auto QC and Auto Blank, and they give the user the ability to set up the clear-expose-read process to be performed automatically in a sequence for each dosemeter. This saves processing time and keeps the fade time the same. However, since the fade time is near zero, will it affect the TLD system calibration factors? What should the user expect? This paper presents a study of the effect of Auto Calibration/Auto QC to the TLD operation.

Body Burden↗

Proton and photon absorbed-dose conversion coefficients for embryo and foetus from top-down irradiation geometry.

Absorbed-dose conversion coefficients are calculated for the embryo of 8 weeks and the foetus of 3, 6 or 9 months when the mother's body is exposed to protons and photons from top-down (TOP) direction. It provides data sets in addition to other standard irradiation geometries published previously. The TOP-irradiation geometry is considered here, because high-energy particles are often peaked from the TOP direction onboard aircrafts. The results show that absorbed-doses from high-energy particles could be underestimated significantly if isotropic (ISO) irradiation geometry is assumed. For protons of 100 GeV, absorbed-doses from TOP irradiation are approximately 2.3-2.9 times higher than the doses from ISO irradiation for different foetal ages. For 10 GeV photons, foetal doses from TOP irradiation are approximately 6.8-12 times higher than the doses from ISO irradiation. The coefficients from TOP-irradiation geometry are given in wide energy ranges, from 100 MeV to 100 GeV for protons and from 50 keV to 10 GeV for photons. They can, therefore, be used in various applications whenever exposure from the TOP-irradiation direction is concerned.

Body Burden↗