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

EOSedge vs. standard digital radiography: image quality and dose exposure in hip-focused scanning

OBJECTIVES

To compare the image quality and X-ray exposure dose from EOSedge versus standard digital radiography (SDR) focused on the hip for replacement or prosthesis revision surgery.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This prospective single centre study included 97 patients between November 2022 and April 2023. For preoperative assessment, SDR radiographs from frontal pelvic and hip profile were indispensable. Often, surgeon requested spine radiograph from EOSedge, to which we added frontal pelvic and hip profile. A radiologist with 4 years' experience established a score based on European guidelines to evaluate the EOSedge versus SDR image quality. Quality scores (QS) were compared using paired Student's t test. The entrance skin dose (ESD) and dose area product (DAP) of the images were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients, including 49 women and 48 men (mean 68.10 years ± 13.28) were assessed. The QSEOSedge was significantly higher than the QSSDR, with differences of 1.34 ± 1.90 (p < 0.001) and 1.74 ± 1.90 (p < 0.001), respectively. The difference in total QS was 3.08 ± 3.48 (p < 0.001). The radiation delivered (ESD x DAP) by EOSedge was 29 times lower than that delivered by SDR for frontal pelvic imaging (0.35 ± 0.91 versus 10.20 ± 12.63; p < 0.001) and 17 times lower for hip profile imaging (0.41 ± 0.84 versus 6.91 ± 9.70; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the superior image quality of EOSedge images focused on the pelvis and hip compared to SDR, with significantly less radiation exposure.

Clinical application of EOS imaging system: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to examine and map the existing literature on the clinical application of the EOS imaging system and to identify related evidence gaps.

INTRODUCTION

The EOS imaging system was originally developed to conduct imaging for medical conditions, such as scoliosis and anisomelia. However, recent research suggests that the modality has other clinical uses that may benefit patients via reduced radiation dose and, thus, improve patient safety.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review will consider all quantitative study designs, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Imaging phantom studies and conference abstracts will be excluded.

METHODS

Databases that will be searched include Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Academic Search Premier, and OpenGrey. Relevant secondary material will be identified using citation searching (backwards and forwards) of included studies through Google Scholar. In addition, we will search by author name where more than 3 included studies from the same first author are identified. Articles published from 2003 in English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, French, and German will be included. Two independent reviewers will perform title/abstract screening, followed by full-text screening. Data extraction will include study type and design, age of participants, anatomical/physiological region, pathology, clinical endpoint, outcome measures, sample size, and clinical application. Data will be presented in tabular format and as a narrative summary.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/yc85j/.

Visual Evaluation of Image Quality of a Low Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Imaging System Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems

The purpose of this study was to assess the image quality of the low dose 2D/3D slot scanner (LDSS) imaging system compared to conventional digital radiography (DR) imaging systems. Visual image quality was assessed using the visual grading analysis (VGA) method. This method is a subjective approach that uses a human observer to evaluate and optimise radiographic images for different imaging technologies. Methods and materials: ten posterior-anterior (PA) and ten lateral (LAT) images of a chest anthropomorphic phantoms and a knee phantom were acquired by an LDSS imaging system and two conventional DR imaging systems. The images were shown in random order to three (chest) radiologists and three experienced (knee) radiographers, who scored the images against a number of criteria. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and weighted kappa. Results: the statistical comparison of the agreement between the observers showed good interobserver agreement, with Fleiss’ kappa coefficients of 0.27–0.63 and 0.23–0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. Comparison of intraobserver agreement also showed good agreement with weighted kappa coefficients of 0.27–0.63 and 0.23–0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. The LDSS imaging system achieved significantly higher VGA image quality compared to the DR imaging systems in the AP and LAT chest protocols (p < 0.001). However, the LDSS imaging system achieved lower image quality than one DR system (p ≤ 0.016) and equivalent image quality to the other DR systems (p ≤ 0.27) in the knee protocol. The LDSS imaging system achieved effective dose savings of 33–52% for the chest protocol and 30–35% for the knee protocol compared with DR systems. Conclusions: this work has shown that the LDSS imaging system has the potential to acquire chest and knee images at diagnostic quality and at a lower effective dose than DR systems.

Quantitative Image Quality Metrics of the Low-Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems

The aim of this study was to determine the quantitative image quality metrics of the low-dose 2D/3D EOS slot scanner X-ray imaging system (LDSS) compared with conventional digital radiography (DR) X-ray imaging systems. The effective detective quantum efficiency (eDQE) and effective noise quantum equivalent (eNEQ) were measured using chest and knee protocols.

METHODS

A Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends (NEXT) of a chest adult phantom and a PolyMethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom were used for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. Quantitative image quality metrics, including effective normalised noise power spectrum (eNNPS), effective modulation transfer function (eMTF), eDQE and eNEQ of the LDSS and DR imaging systems were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

In the chest acquisition, the LDSS imaging system achieved significantly higher eNEQ and eDQE than the DR imaging systems at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.044). For the knee acquisition, the LDSS imaging system also achieved significantly higher eNEQ and eDQE than the DR imaging systems at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.002). However, there was no significant difference in eNEQ and eDQE between DR systems 1 and 2 at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.10 < p < 1.00) for either chest or knee protocols.

CONCLUSION

The LDSS imaging system performed well compared to the DR systems. Thus, we have demonstrated that the LDSS imaging system has the potential to be used for clinical diagnostic purposes.