Selenium-based digital radiography in the detection of bone lesions: preliminary experience with experimentally created defects

Comparison of flat-panel digital to conventional film-screen radiography in detection of experimentally created lesions of the equine third metacarpal bone

Radiographic diagnosis of equine bone disease using digital radiography is prevalent in veterinary practice. However, the diagnostic quality of digital vs. conventional radiography has not been compared systematically. We hypothesized that digital radiography would be superior to film-screen radiography for detection of subtle lesions of the equine third metacarpal bone. Twenty-four third metacarpal bones were collected from horses euthanized for reasons other than orthopedic disease. Bones were dissected free of soft tissue and computed tomography was performed to ensure that no osseous abnormalities were present. Subtle osseous lesions were produced in the dorsal cortex of the third metacarpal bones, and the bones were radiographed in a soft tissue phantom using indirect digital and conventional radiography at standard exposures. Digital radiographs were printed onto film. Three Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Radiology evaluated the radiographs for the presence or absence of a lesion. Receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under these curves were compared to assess the ability of the digital and film-screen radiographic systems to detect lesions. The area under the ROC curves for film-screen and digital radiography were 0.87 and 0.90, respectively (P = 0.59). We concluded that the digital radiographic system was comparable to the film-screen system for detection of subtle lesions of the equine third metacarpal bone.

Slot-scan digital radiography of the lower extremities: a comparison to computed radiography with respect to image quality and radiation dose

Objective

To compare the slot-scan digital radiography (SSDR) of the lower extremity region and the computed radiography (CR) method with respect to the image quality and radiation exposure.

Materials and Methods

We enrolled 54 patients who underwent both the SSDR and CR of the lower extremities. The study evaluated and statistically compared the image quality of four features (outer cortex, inner cortex, trabeculae and intermuscular fat) at six different levels (pelvis, hip, femur, knee, tibia and ankle) between each method. The image quality was evaluated using a visibility scale, and the entrance skin dose was measured using a dosimeter at three different levels of a phantom (hip, knee, and ankle).

Results

The mean image visibility scale values for the SSDR method were significantly higher than for the CR method. The entrance skin dose for the SSDR method was 278 µGy at each level, compared to the entrance skin doses of the CR method, which were 3,410 µGy for the hip, 1,152 µGy for the knee, and 580 µGy for the ankle.

Conclusion

Both the image quality and patient entrance skin dose data suggest that the SSDR method is superior to the CR method for the lower extremity musculoskeletal examination.

Comparison of Different Radiography Systems in an Experimental Study for Detection of Forearm Fractures and Evaluation of the M??ller-AO and Frykman Classification for Distal Radius Fractures

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the diagnostic performance of screen-film radiography, storage-phosphor radiography, and a flat-panel detector system in detecting forearm fractures and to classify distal radius fractures according to the Müller-AO and Frykman classifications compared with the true extent, depicted by anatomic preparation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 71 cadaver arms were fractured in a material testing machine creating different fractures of the radius and ulna as well as of the carpal bones. Radiographs of the complete forearm were evaluated by 3 radiologists, and anatomic preparation was used as standard of reference in a receiver operating curve analysis.

RESULTS

The highest diagnostic performance was obtained for the detection of distal radius fractures with area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) values of 0.959 for screen-film radiography, 0.966 for storage-phosphor radiography, and 0.971 for the flat-panel detector system (P > 0.05). Exact classification was slightly better for the Frykman (kappa values of 0.457-0.478) compared with the Müller-AO classification (kappa values of 0.404-0.447), but agreement can be considered as moderate for both classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 imaging systems showed a comparable diagnostic performance in detecting forearm fractures. A high diagnostic performance was demonstrated for distal radius fractures and conventional radiography can be routinely performed for fracture detection. However, compared with anatomic preparation, depiction of the true extent of distal radius fractures was limited and the severity of distal radius fractures tends to be underestimated.

Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography

PURPOSE

To compare a large-area direct-readout flat-panel detector system with a conventional screen-film system and a storage-phosphor system in detecting small artificial osseous lesions simulating osteolytic disease and to assess diagnostic performance with decreasing exposure dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Artificial lesions (0.5-3.0 mm) were created in 100 of 200 predefined regions in 20 porcine femoral specimens. Specimens were enclosed in containers filled with water to create absorption and scatter radiation conditions comparable with those in a human extremity. Imaging was performed with a flat-panel detector system, a conventional screen-film system, and a storage-phosphor system. Levels of exposure equivalent to speed classes 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 were used. In all images, the presence or absence of a lesion was assessed by three radiologists using a five-point confidence scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for 4,800 observations (600 for each imaging modality and exposure level) and diagnostic performance estimated with the area under the ROC curve (A(z)). The significance of differences in diagnostic performance was tested with analysis of variance.

RESULTS

ROC analysis showed A(z) values of 0.820 (speed class 400), 0.780 (class 800), 0.758 (class 1600), and 0.676 (class 3200) for the flat-panel detector; 0.761 (class 400), 0.725 (class 800), and 0.662 (class 1600) for the storage-phosphor system; and 0.788 (class 400) for the conventional screen-film system. The A(z) value for the flat-panel detector at speed class 400 was significantly higher than that for all other systems (P <.05). A(z) values for the speed class 400 screen-film system and flat-panel detector system at speed class 800 were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The flat-panel detector has diagnostic performance superior to that of conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography for detecting small artificial osseous lesions at clinical exposure settings. With the flat-panel detector, exposure dose can be reduced by 50% to obtain diagnostic performance comparable with that of a conventional speed class 400 screen-film system.

Detection of porcine bone lesions and fissures: comparing digital selenium, digital luminescence, and analog film-screen radiography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of a digital selenium detector (Thoravision) with that of analog film-screen systems and digital luminescence radiography in skeletal radiography for the detection of fissures and lesions in porcine bones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred bones taken from domestic pigs (50 ribs and 50 femurs) were divided into two equal groups. Fissures and bone lesions were created in 50 bones and 50 served as controls. The bones were examined using film-screen systems, digital luminescence radiography, and digital selenium radiography at various doses. Digital selenium radiography exposure values were adapted to the image geometry differing from the reference methods with a detector focus distance of 2.15 m. Four radiologists independently evaluated image quality and detectability of fissures and lesions on a five-point scale of confidence. Statistical evaluation was based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

Fissures and bone lesions were detected most reliably using the mammography film-screen system, but the difference in the results of the analog and digital reference images did not achieve statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Compared with analog film-screen systems, the lower spatial resolution of the digital selenium and digital luminescence radiography systems does not affect detectability of fissures and bone lesions in porcine bone. Selenium is effective in skeletal radiography for detecting fissures and bone lesions. With digital selenium and digital luminescence radiography, the surface dose can be cut to half that required for 200-speed film-screen systems without losing any diagnostically relevant information.