Influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality and patient absorbed dose in lumbar spine radiography

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Tingberg ◽  
Clemens Herrmann ◽  
Birgitta Lanhede ◽  
Anja Almen ◽  
Saron Mattsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Absorbed Dose ◽  
Clinical Image ◽  
Spine Radiography

Influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality of lumbar spine and chest radiographs

2004 ◽  
Vol 77 (915) ◽  
pp. 204-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Tingberg ◽  
C Herrmann ◽  
B Lanhede ◽  
A Almén ◽  
M Sandborg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Chest Radiographs ◽  
Clinical Image

OPTIMAL COLLIMATION SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES LUMBAR SPINE RADIOGRAPHY

2020 ◽  
Vol 189 (4) ◽  
pp. 420-427
Author(s):  
Anamaria Pazanin ◽  
Damijan Skrk ◽  
Jessica C O'Driscoll ◽  
Mark F McEntee ◽  
Nejc Mekis
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Absorbed Dose ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Organ Doses ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Spine Radiography ◽  
Spine Imaging ◽  
Radiosensitive Organs ◽  
Area Product

Abstract Purpose To determine the influence of optimal collimation during lumbar spine radiography on radiation dose and image quality. Material and methods 110 lumbar spine patients were split into two groups—the first imaged with standard collimation and the second with optimal collimation. Body mass index, image field size, exposure conditions and dose area product were measured. Effective and absorbed organ doses were calculated. Image quality was assessed. Results Optimal collimation reduced the primary field by up to 40%. The effective dose was reduced by 48% for the AP projection, while no differences were found for the LAT projection due to incorrect positioning of the central beam with standard collimation. The absorbed dose to selected radiosensitive organs decreased by 41 and 10% in the AP and LAT projections, respectively. Image quality for the LAT projection improved by 24% and maintained for the AP projection. Conclusion Optimal collimation in lumbar spine imaging significantly influences patient exposure to radiation.

Image quality in conventional lumbar spine radiography

2009 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilo Niemann ◽  
Clemens Reisinger ◽  
Laura Ruiz-Lopez ◽  
Georg Bongartz
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Spine Radiography

scholarly journals Lumbar spine radiographs — is it time for widespread adoption of posteroanterior projection?

2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (1103) ◽  
pp. 20190386
Author(s):  
Christopher Green ◽  
Guru Karnati ◽  
Katharine Thomson ◽  
Ashok Subramanian
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Effective Dose ◽  
Acquisition Time ◽  
Reference Image ◽  
Patient Study ◽  
Spine Radiography ◽  
Widespread Adoption ◽  
Spine Radiograph ◽  
Spine Radiographs

Objective: Phantom studies and a prior patient study have shown up to 53% effective dose reduction when lumbar spine radiographs are acquired posteroanterior (PA) instead of anteroposterior (AP). Since November 2017, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust has acquired all standing lumbar spine radiographs PA. The aim of this study was to locally evaluate dose and image quality in both projections and survey current UK practice. Methods: 80 outpatients having a standing lumbar spine radiograph (40 AP; 40 PA) had their dose–area product recorded at a constant KV and focus film distance. Effective dose was calculated using PCXMC software. Each blinded radiograph was scored against an optimal reference image using European Guidelines criteria. The data were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U tests and linear regression. Eighty radiologists nationally were sent an anonymous survey to establish their current practice. Results: A lumbar spine radiograph acquired PA instead of AP reduced effective dose by 41% (p < 0.001) with no difference in image quality (p = 0.9). 21 radiologists completed our survey and only 1 NHS Trust is currently using PA. Conclusion: PA lumbar spine radiography reduces patient radiation exposure with no affect on image quality, acquisition time or cost. The majority of NHS Trusts nationally are still using AP and it is time to standardize to PA. Advances in knowledge: This patient study provides further good evidence of how reduction in exposure to ionizing radiation can be achieved in lumbar spine radiography and more widespread adoption of PA protocol could improve patient safety.

scholarly journals ANODE HEEL EFFECT ATTENUATION IN LUMBAR SPINE RADIOGRAPHY: CAN THE USE OF ALUMINIUM FILTERS IMPROVE CLINICAL PRACTICE OF RADIOGRAPHERS?

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-26
Author(s):  
Luís Pedro Vieira RIBEIRO ◽  
António Fernando Caldeira Lagem ABRANTES ◽  
Oksana LESYUK ◽  
Rúben DORES ◽  
Patrick SOUSA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Image Quality Assessment ◽  
Skin Dose ◽  
Lateral Projection ◽  
Spine Radiography ◽  
Imaging Department ◽  
Spine Radiographs ◽  
Heel Effect

Purpose: The aim of this study was to design an aluminium-based filter to reduce the anode heel effect in lumbar spine radiographs. Methods: Initially, lumbar spine examinations were observed in a public imaging department to determine the standard exposure parameters. Then, the characterization of the anode heel effect was made using the Unfors Xi R/F detector and based on the data collected, aluminium filters were designed with a wedge shape, with thicknesses ranging from 0.1 to 4.0 mm. The assessment of the entrance skin dose (ESD) reduction was performed on the anthropomorphic phantom, with and without filters, using the universal dosimeter UNIDOS E equipped with an ionization chamber. Lastly, the image quality assessment was performed with the Pehamed Phantom Digrad A+K and image quality surveys were applied to radiographers and radiologists.     Results and Discussion: Uniformity of the beam was achieved, especially with the filter number 2, which presents a significant variation of 9% between cathode and anode side. This filter contributes to ESD reduction of 35% and 36% for AP and lateral projection, respectively. Also, according to the radiographers and radiologists, it improves the image quality of lumbar spine radiography. Conclusion: The use of aluminium filters can be advantageous in the clinical practice of radiographers when carrying out lumbar spine radiographs, since it allows to standardize the anode heel effect, reducing the radiation dose to the patient and without compromising the image quality.

A baseline study of entrance dose and image quality for lumbar spine radiography in Calabar, Nigeria

Radiography ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 306-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.O. Egbe ◽  
N.O. Chiaghanam ◽  
W.E. Azogor ◽  
S.O. Inyang
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Baseline Study ◽  
Spine Radiography ◽  
Entrance Dose

scholarly journals Comparison of anteroposterior and posteroanterior projection in lumbar spine radiography

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erna Alukic ◽  
Damijan Skrk ◽  
Nejc Mekis
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Effective Dose ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Image Field ◽  
Spine Radiography ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Phase Data

Abstract Background The aim of the study was to compare patient radiation dose and image quality in planar lumbar spine radiography using the PA and AP projection in a large variety of patients of both sexes and different sizes. Patients and methods In the first phase data of image field size, DAP, effective dose and image quality were gathered for AP and PA projection in lumbar spine imaging of anthropomorphic phantom. In the second phase, data of BMI, image field size, diameter of the patient’s abdomen, DAP, effective dose and image quality were gathered for 100 patients of both sexes who were referred to lumbar spine radiography. The patients were divided into two groups of 50 patients, one of which was imaged using the AP projection while the other the PA projection. Results The study on the phantom showed no statistically significant difference in image field size, DAP and image quality. However, the calculated effective dose in the PA projection was 25% lower compared to AP projection (p =0.008). Measurements on the patients showed no statistically significant difference between the BMI and the image field size. In the PA projection, the thickness of abdomen was 10% (p < 10–3) lower, DAP 27% lower (p = 0.009) and the effective dose 53% (p < 10–3) lower than in AP projection. There was no statistically significant difference in image quality between the AP and the PA projection. Conclusions The study results support the use of the PA projection as the preferred method of choice in planar lumbar spine radiography.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document