Comparison of radiation exposure to the patient and contrast detail resolutions across micro dose 2D/3D slot scanner and two conventional digital radiography X-ray imaging systems
Journal article, Peer reviewed
MetadataShow full item record
Original versionAbdi, Mussmann, Mackenzie, Klærke, Andersen. COMPARISON OF RADIATION EXPOSURE TO THE PATIENT AND CONTRAST DETAIL RESOLUTIONS ACROSS LOW DOSE 2D/3D SLOT SCANNER AND TWO CONVENTIONAL DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY X-RAY IMAGING SYSTEMS. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2019;185(2):252-265 https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncz006
PURPOSE: To assess and compare the radiation dose and image quality of the low dose 2D/3D EOS slot scanner (LDSS) to conventional digital radiography (DR) X-ray imaging systems for chest and knee examination protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The effective doses (ED) to the patient in the chest and knee clinical examination protocols for LDSS and DR X-ray imaging systems were determined using the dose area product and PCXMC Monte Carlo simulation software. The CDRAD phantom was imaged with 19 cm, and 13 cm thick Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) blocks to simulate the chest and knees respectively of a patient of average adult size. The contrast detail resolution was calculated using image analysis software. RESULTS: The EDs for the LDSS default setting were up to 69% and 51% lower than for the DR systems for the chest (speed 4) and knee (speed 6) protocols, respectively, while for the increased dose level setting then the EDs were up to 42% and 35% lower than for the DR systems for the chest (speed 6) and knee (speed 8) protocols respectively. At the default setting, the contrast detail was lowest for the default setting of the 2D/3D low dose slot scanner (LDSS) for both chest and knee examinations, but at the highest dose levels then the threshold were equal or higher than the contrast resolution of DR imaging systems. CONCLUSION: The LDSS has the potential to be used for clinical diagnosis of chest and knee examinations using the higher dose level. For speed 6 in chest protocol and speed 8 in knee protocol, the measured contrast detail resolution was comparable with the DR systems but at a lower effective dose.