DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY: IMAGE QUALITY AND RADIATION DOSE

Digital radiography devices, rapidly replacing analog screen-film detectors, are now common in diagnostic radiological imaging, where implementation has been accelerated by the commodity status of electronic imaging and display systems. The shift from narrow latitude, fixed-speed screen-film detectors to wide latitude, variable-speed digital detectors has created a flexible imaging system that can easily result in overexposures to the patient without the knowledge of the operator, thus potentially increasing the radiation burden of the patient population from radiographic examinations. In addition, image processing can be inappropriately applied causing inconsistent or artifactual appearance of anatomy, which can lead to misdiagnosis. On the other hand, many advantages can be obtained from the variable-speed digital detector, such as an ability to lower dose in many examinations, image post-processing for disease-specific conditions, display flexibility to change the appearance of the image and aid the physician in making a differential diagnosis, and easy access to digital images. An understanding of digital radiography is necessary to minimize the possibility of overexposures and inconsistent results, and to achieve the principle of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) for the safe and effective care of all patients. Thus many issues must be considered for optimal implementation of digital radiography, as reviewed in this article.

[1]  J. W. Tukey,et al.  The Measurement of Power Spectra from the Point of View of Communications Engineering , 1958 .

[2]  Elizabeth A Krupinski,et al.  Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[3]  B. Schueler,et al.  Performance evaluation of a computed radiography imaging device using a typical "front side" and novel "dual side" readout storage phosphors. , 2006, Medical physics.

[4]  Christin Wirth The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[5]  I. Cunningham Applied Linear-Systems Theory , 2000 .

[6]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[7]  Paul Leblans,et al.  New needle-crystalline CR detector , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[8]  W. Webb,et al.  Finding-specific display presets for computed radiography soft-copy reading , 1999, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[9]  J. Anthony Seibert,et al.  Tradeoffs between image quality and dose , 2004, Pediatric Radiology.

[10]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems. , 1995, Medical physics.

[11]  Pieter Vuylsteke,et al.  Multiscale image contrast amplification (MUSICA) , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[12]  Masahiko Yamada,et al.  Unsharp masking technique using multiresolution analysis for computed radiography image enhancement , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[13]  J A Seibert,et al.  Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[14]  M. Rabbani,et al.  Detective quantum efficiency of imaging systems with amplifying and scattering mechanisms. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[15]  Elizabeth A Krupinski,et al.  Digital radiography image quality: image processing and display. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology.

[16]  Chengyu Shi Specifications, Performance Evaluation and Quality Assurance of Radiographic and Fluoroscopic Systems in the Digital Era , 2006 .

[17]  P. Wadkins Digital radiographs. , 2000, Journal of the American Dental Association.