jksronline.org
eISSN 2951-0805
    J Korean Soc Radiol. 2010 Feb;62(2):131-137. Korean.
    Published online Feb 28, 2010.
    https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2010.62.2.131
    Copyright © 2010 The Korean Society of Radiology
    Original Article

    A Comparative Study of Image Quality and Radiation Dose with Changes in Tube Voltage and Current for a Digital Chest Radiography

    Boram Park, M.D. and Dong Wook Sung, M.D.
      • 1Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Korea.
    • Address reprint requests to: Dong Wook Sung, M.D., Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Hoegi-dong 1, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-702, Korea. Tel. 82-2-958-8625, Fax. 82-2-968-0787, Email: sungdw@paran.com
    Received June 13, 2009; Accepted September 22, 2009.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    High-voltage techniques applicable for analog radiographs are usually used in digital radiographs. We compared the image quality of the different exposure conditions to produce conditions of high image quality and low radiation dose.

    Materials and Methods

    The tube voltage ranged from 70 to 133 kV, whereas the tube current ranged from 2 to 6.3 mAs. The digital radiograph images of a chest phantom were obtained at each setting. We measured the radiation doses of each condition, and counted the visible test objects. The numbers of objects for each condition were compared with the standards used at our institution.

    Results

    The standard settings were set at 133 kVp and 2 or 4 mAs. Compared to the image quality at 133 kVp and 2 mAs, the radiation dose was lowest at a setting of 109 kVp and 2 mAs. Compared to the image quality of 133 kVp and 4 mAs, the radiation dose was lowest at 109 kVp and 4 mAs.

    Conclusion

    The results of our study suggest that radiation dose can be reduced without compromising image quality by a low-voltage technique in digitial radiography.

    Keywords
    Radiography; Image Quality; Radiation Dosage

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Correlation of numbers of discs and radiation doses. Visible discs increase as the radiation dose increase.

    Fig. 2
    (A) 133kVp, 6.3 mAs. Radiation dose was the highest (241.2 µGy). On average, 49.17 discs were seen. (B) 70kVp, 2mAs. Radiation dose was lowest (16.9 µGy). On average, 32.38 discs were seen.

    Fig. 3
    (A) 109 kVp, 2mAs. Mean visible discs were 43.71 and not statistically different from that of in 133 kVp and 2mAs (B) (mean=45).

    Fig. 4
    (A) In condition of 109 kVp and 4 mAs, mean visible discs were 48.04 and not statistically different from that of 133 kVp, 4 mAs (B) (mean=49.13).

    Tables

    Table 1
    Radiation Doses (µGy) of Each Tube Voltage (kVp) and Current (mAs) and Radiation Disease of the Conditions that Showed Similar Image Quality to That of Standard Technique

    Table 2
    Numbers of Visible Discs of Each Condition

    References

      1. Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345–351.
      1. Pohlit W. Radiation biology risk of imaging procedures. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1986;134:364–369.
      1. Willis CE. Strategies for dose reduction in ordinary radiographic examinations using CR and DR. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34 Suppl 3:S196–S200.
      1. Peters SE, Brennan PC. Digital radiography: are the manufacturers' settings too high? Optimization of the Kodak digital radiography system with aid of the computed radiography dose index. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2381–2387.
      1. Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Dance DR. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med Phys 2003;30:442–448.
      1. Gkanatsios NA, Huda W, Peters KR. Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography. Med Phys 2002;29:1643–1650.
      1. Bankier AA, Schaefer-Prokop C, De Maertelaer V, Tack D, Jaksch P, Klepetko W, et al. Air Trapping: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Simulated Low-Dose Thin-Section CT Techniques. Radiology 2007;242:898–906.
      1. Neofotistou V, Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Schreiner-Karoussou A, Vano E. Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? A pilot study and review of the literature. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;117:204–210.
      1. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:923–929.
      1. Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ, van Delft JP, Geleijns J. Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: dose reduction at digital posteroanterior chest radiography. Radiology 2006;241:392–398.
      1. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser JK, Völk M, Fründ R, Seitz J, Feuerbach S. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose: comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon. Invest Radiol 1998;33:98–103.
      1. Petrone TJ, Steidley KD, Appleby A, Christman E, Haughey F. X-ray beam energy, scatter, and radiation risk in chest radiography. Health Phys 1996;70:488–497.
      1. Hintenlang KM, Williams JL, Hintenlang DE. A survey of radiation dose associated with pediatric plain-film chest X-ray examinations. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:771–777.
      1. Chotas HG, Floyd CE Jr, Johnson GA, Ravin CE. Quality Control Phantom for Digital Chest Radiography. Radiology 1997;202:111–116.
      1. Mattoon JS. Digital radiography. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006;19:123–132.
      1. Van Soldt RT, Zweers D, van den Berg L, Geleijns J, Jansen JT, Zoetelief J. Survey of posteroanterior chest radiography in The Netherlands: patient dose and image quality. Br J Radiol 2003;76:398–405.
      1. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Ullman G, Dance DR, Alm Carlsson G. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages. Med Phys 2006;33:4169–4175.
      1. Reissberg S, Hoeschen C, Kästner A, Theus U, Fiedler R, Krause U, Döhring W. First clinical experience with a full-size, flat-panel detector for imaging the peripheral skeletal system. Rofo 2001;173:1048–1052.
    Cited by
    Crossref 5
    Google Scholar 
    MeSH Terms
    Radiation Dosage
    Thorax
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 4

    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    PERMALINK