Comparison of image quality in chest, hip and pelvis examinations between mobile equipment in nursing homes and static indirect radiography equipment in the hospital.

INTRODUCTION: A hospital environment can be a significant burden and a health risk especially for dementia patients. Mobile x-ray equipment (ME) is used to enable imaging of these patients at home. The aim was to compare image quality (IQ) of chest, hip and pelvis images from ME to the stationary equipment (SE) used in a hospital department. METHODS: We analysed examinations of the chest (n = 20), hip (n = 64) and pelvis (n = 32). Images were equally obtained from each setting of ME and SE. All images were graded using Visual Grading Analysis (VGA) by three radiographers (hip and pelvis) and three radiologists (chest). Technical IQ assessment was done by 80 additional images of a Contrast-Detail Radiography phantom (CDRAD). RESULTS: All chest images were approved for diagnostic use, as well as the hip AP and pelvis images from SE. 'Approved proportion of ME images was for HIP antero-posterior (AP) and pelvis, 78% [95% CI: 52-94%] and 81% [95% CI: 54-96%] respectively. Hip axial had an overall low, but not significant different approval rate. Ordered logistic regression indicated higher IQ of HIP AP and pelvic images from SE. This contrasts that the CDRAD substudy indicated better IQ, expressed as IQFinv, from ME. CONCLUSION: The VGA showed higher IQ for the SE system, while the CDRAD showed higher IQ for the ME system. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Dementia patients can be examined at their home if the acquisition is optimised according to image quality in conjunct to radiation dose. Performing imaging out of the hospital and coordinating the patients' further treatment are new work areas for radiographers and requires excellent communication skills.

Does software optimization influence the radiologists' perception in low dose paediatric pelvic examinations?

PURPOSE: To investigate whether software optimisation can improve an observers' perception of image quality in low dose paediatric pelvic examinations. METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients (3-7 years old) were referred for a pelvic digital radiography (DR) examination. They were prospectively enrolled in the study over a 3-month period. Images were taken at 80 kV and 2-4 mAs depending on pelvic thickness (9-15 cm). A small focal spot, 130 cm SID: 10 cm air gap and 1 mm Al and 0.2 mm Cu additional filtration were also utilised. Images were acquired on a Canon DR detector and optimised using five different combinations of the multi-frequency processing software (Canon DR system version NE, Version 7.1 with SPECTRA) to comply with the ALARA principle. Image quality was blindly evaluated using the subjective Visual Grading Analysis (VGA) by five experienced musculoskeletal radiologists, including the evaluation of six anatomical image quality criteria (scored from 1 to 5). RESULTS: Consistently, the VGA results indicated that by using software optimised parameters, image quality was suitable for diagnosis in 48-71% of all images. Based on a VGC analysis all software optimised images did have significant better image quality then the one with just the clinical settings. Noise reduction was the software setting which influenced the image quality the most, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8172 95%CI 0.7953-0.8375. CONCLUSION: Software optimisation improve the radiologists' perception of image quality and should thus be thoroughly considered within clinical practise. Noise reduction is the software parameter which has the greatest influence.

Digital radiography: optimization of image quality and dose using multi-frequency software.

BACKGROUND: New developments in processing of digital radiographs (DR), including multi-frequency processing (MFP), allow optimization of image quality and radiation dose. This is particularly promising in children as they are believed to be more sensitive to ionizing radiation than adults. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the use of MFP software reduces the radiation dose without compromising quality at DR of the femur in 5-year-old-equivalent anthropomorphic and technical phantoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 110 images of an anthropomorphic phantom were imaged on a DR system (Canon DR with CXDI-50 C detector and MLT[S] software) and analyzed by three pediatric radiologists using Visual Grading Analysis. In addition, 3,500 images taken of a technical contrast-detail phantom (CDRAD 2.0) provide an objective image-quality assessment. RESULTS: Optimal image-quality was maintained at a dose reduction of 61% with MLT(S) optimized images. Even for images of diagnostic quality, MLT(S) provided a dose reduction of 88% as compared to the reference image. Software impact on image quality was found significant for dose (mAs), dynamic range dark region and frequency band. CONCLUSION: By optimizing image processing parameters, a significant dose reduction is possible without significant loss of image quality.

Image rejects/retakes--radiographic challenges.

A general held position among radiological personnel prior to digitalisation was that the problem of image rejects/retakes should more or less vanish. However, rejects/retakes still impose several challenges within radiographic imaging; they occupy unnecessary resources, expose patients to unnecessary ionizing radiation and may also indicate suboptimal quality management. The latter is the main objective of this paper, which is based on a survey of international papers published both for screen/film and digital technology. The digital revolution in imaging seems to have reduced the percentage of image rejects/retakes from 10-15 to 3-5 %. The major contribution to the decrease appears to be the dramatic reduction of incorrect exposures. At the same time, rejects/retakes due to lack of operator competence (positioning, etc.) are almost unchanged, or perhaps slightly increased (due to lack of proper technical competence, incorrect organ coding, etc.). However, the causes of rejects/retakes are in many cases defined and reported with reference to radiographers' subjective evaluations. Thus, unless radiographers share common views on image quality and acceptance criteria, objective measurements and assessments of reject/retake rates are challenging tasks. Interestingly, none of the investigated papers employs image quality parameters such as 'too much noise' as categories for rejects/retakes. Surprisingly, no reject/retake analysis seems yet to have been conducted for direct digital radiography departments. An increased percentage of rejects/retakes is related to 'digital skills' of radiographers and therefore points to areas for extended education and training. Furthermore, there is a need to investigate the inter-subjectivity of radiographers' perception of, and attitude towards, both technical and clinical image quality criteria. Finally, there may be a need to validate whether reject/retake rate analysis is such an effective quality indicator as has been asserted.