Quality Control Phantom for Flat Panel Detector X-ray Systems

AbstractX-ray equipment should be routinely checked for optimal imaging performance and appropriate radiation dose. Recently, the use of diagnostic x-ray equipment with flat panel detectors (FPDs) has increased instead of image intensifier (II) and/or screen film systems. In addition, it is necessary to maintain the performance of FPD systems. Unfortunately, no simple quality control (QC) phantom is available for easy evaluation of FPD image performance. This manuscript suggests a novel simple and inexpensive QC phantom for radiography and fluoroscopy. The authors made a new QC phantom for FPD systems to evaluate the spatial resolution, low-contrast resolution, and dynamic range on single (one-shot) x-ray exposures. The phantom consists of three copper thicknesses (0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 mm), an aluminum stepwedge (0.1–2.7 mm), and piano wire of various diameters (0.08–0.5 mm). They also performed an initial check of the new phantom using a FPD system (fluoroscopic and radiographic images). The new phantom is simple and inexpensive to make. This simple phantom is very useful for QC of FPD systems because a visual evaluation of image performance in three thicknesses of copper (low, intermediate, and high attenuation) is readily available with a single exposure. This simple method for daily checking of FPD systems (radiography and fluoroscopy) using the phantom constitutes an easy way to routinely check image performance and will be useful for QC.

[1]  Relationship between the pixel value in digital subtraction angiography and iodine concentration: study in high iodine concentration with original phantom. , 2000, The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine.

[2]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Total entrance skin dose: an effective indicator of maximum radiation dose to the skin during percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Radiation dose survey in a paediatric cardiac catheterisation laboratory equipped with flat-panel detectors. , 2008, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[4]  Virginia Tsapaki,et al.  Radiation exposure to patients during interventional procedures in 20 countries: initial IAEA project results. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  E. Vañó,et al.  RADIATION PROTECTION IN PEDIATRIC INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY: AN IAEA PILOT PROGRAM IN LATIN AMERICA , 2011, Health physics.

[6]  J. Valentin,et al.  Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. , 2000, Annals of the ICRP.

[7]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Relationship between fluoroscopic time, dose-area product, body weight, and maximum radiation skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  B. Archer,et al.  Management of patient skin dose in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[9]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Virginia Tsapaki,et al.  Dose performance evaluation of a charge coupled device and a flat-panel digital fluoroscopy system recently installed in an interventional cardiology laboratory. , 2004, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[11]  PATIENT RADIATION EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS DURING INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY , 2006, Health physics.