Evaluation of image quality according to the use of copper filter in indirect conversion type DR equipment

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract

    Background/Objectives: The image quality is evaluated by applying copper to the thickness of filtering filter in indirect conversion type DR equipment. To evaluate the appropriate filter criteria, that does not deteriorate the image quality is obtained for SNR and CNR for each thickness.

    Methods/Statistical analysis: Indirect conversion type DR device was used. Acrylic phantom of 12 * 14 size was placed under the same conditions of 85kV, 200mA, 16ms.Experiments were carried out without using a filter, and each of the five copper filters of different thicknesses was irradiated 20 times each. Using the Image j program, an average value and a standard deviation were obtained after designating the region of interest and background area identically. Based on these values, SNR and CNR were obtained and statistical analysis was done by one-way ANOVA. Statistic was used PASW Statistics 18. Release 18.0.0.

    Findings: In the non-filter, the SNR value is 26.61 ± 2.05, the CNR value is 0.61 ± 0.06, the SNR value is 30.08 ± 4, 63 and the CNR value is 0.76 ± 0.16 for Cu-filter 0.1mm. In the Cu-filter 0.2 mm, the SNR value is 30.54 ± 4.44, the CNR value is 0.78 ± 0.16, and the SNR value at Cu-filter 0.3mm is 36.91 ± 5.47 CNR value is 1.10 ± 0.22. In the Cu-filter 1.0 mm, the SNR value is 24.88 ± 2.57, the CNR value is 0.71 ± 0.89, the SNR value is 13.82 ± 1.27 and the CNR value is 0.31 ± 0.02 at the Cu-filter 2.0 mm. The highest SNR was 0.3 mm, the highest CNR was 0.3 mm, and the Cu filter 0.3 mm was the highest in both SNR and CNR. There was a significant difference as the result of one-way ANOVA was P = 0.000 and significance level (p <0.05) range.

    Improvements/Applications: The use of a filter absorbs much of the low-energy region, The effective energy is increased and the radiation dose is reduced.



  • Keywords

    Indirect DR; Copper Filter; SN; CNR; Radiation Dose

  • References

      [1] Fischbach, F.; Freund, T.; Pech, M.; Werk, M.; Bas; Comparison of Indirect CsI/a:Si and Directa: Se Digital Radiography. 2003 (Acta radiologica, Vol.44 No.6)[SCI,SCIE,SCOPUS]

      [2] Hennings, S.P., Garmer, M., Jaeger, H.J., et al. Digital chest radiography with a large-area flat-panel silicon X-ray detector: clinical comparison with conventional radiography. Eur. Radiol 11, 2001, pp.1688-1696.

      [3] B. S. Kang, B. S. Kang, et al., “Principles of Radiographic Imaging”, Ko-Moon Pub., 2010.

      [4] Sheridan, N.; McNulty, J.P.; Response to letter re: Computed radiography versus indirect digital radiography for the detection of glass soft-tissue foreign bodies (RADIOGRAPHY-LONDON- WB SAUNDERS-, Vol.23 No.1, [2017]) [SCOPUS]

      [5] Kotter E, Langer M. Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors. Eur Radiol 12, 2002, pp.2562-2570.

      [6] Katherine p. Andriole et al., ACR-AAPM-SIIM Practice Guideline for Digital Radiography, J Digit Imaging.2013. Pp.26-37.

      [7] Thomson, F. J.Automatic technique parameter selection on a digital mammography system: an evaluation of SNR and CNR as a function of AGD on a GE Senographe DS. (AUSTRALASIAN PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES IN , Vol.29 No.3, [2006]) [SCOPUS]

      [8] Kim-Kyesun. Comparison of Effective dose and Image Quality by additional filtration in Digital Chest tom synthesis. 2015, pp.4-5.

      [9] Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ, van Delft JP, Geleijns J. Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: dose reduction at digital poster anterior chest radiology. Radiology 2006; 241, pp.392-398.

      [10] Berrington de GA, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic Xrays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet2004 31; 363, pp.345-351.

      [11] H.J.Kim, CK, I.J.Lee, W.S.Shin, J.C. Park, H.S.Kang, B.S.Ahn. A study on the effect of rare earth screen filter. Journal of Korean society of radiological technology 1988; 11, pp.17-23.

      [12] Van Soldt RT, Zweers D, van den Berg L, Geleijns J, Jansen JT, ZoeteliefJ. Survey of poster anterior chest radiography in The Netherlands: patient dose and image quality. The British journal of radiology.2003; 76 (906), pp.398-405.

      [13] IAEA Safety Series No.115, International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of RadiationSources.1996

      [14] Wrixon AD. New ICRP recommendations. Journal of radiological protection: official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.2008 Jun; 28(2):161-8.

      [15] International commission on radiological protection (ICRP): The evolution of system of radiological protection radioport, 2 003(23), pp.129-142.

      [16] Arkins HL, Fairchild RG, Robertson JS, Greenburg D. Effect of absorption edge filters on diagnostic X-ray spectra, Radiology. 1983 (49), pp.210-214.

      [17] Dobbins JT Ⅲ, Samei E, Chotas HG, et al. Chest radiography: optimization of x-ray spectrum for cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology 2003, pp.221-230.

      [18] Okka WH, Claude BS, Michael S, et al. Chest radiography with a flat-panel detector: Image quality with dose reduction after copper filtration. Radiology 2005; 237, pp.691-700.




Article ID: 11035
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i2.12.11035

Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.