BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2009) 82, 62-68
© 2009 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/56572915

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GEIJER, H
Right arrow Articles by PERSLIDEN, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by GEIJER, H
Right arrow Articles by PERSLIDEN, J
British Journal of Radiology 82 (2009),62-68 ©2009 The British Institute of Radiology

Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector

H GEIJER, MD, PhD, BA E NORRMAN, PhD and J PERSLIDEN, PhD

1 Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, SE-701 85, 2 Department of Clinical Medicine, Örebro University, SE-701 82, 3 Department of Medical Physics, Örebro University Hospital, SE-701 85 and 4 Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, SE-701 82, Örebro, Sweden

Correspondence: Håkan Geijer, Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden. E-mail: hakan.geijer{at}orebroll.se

The purpose of this study was to find the optimal settings for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel detector. A CDRAD contrast-detail phantom was imaged at various tube potentials, system speeds and filtration settings. Factorial experiments yielded a range of optimized exposure settings, which were submitted to visual grading analysis with images of an Alderson phantom. The first optimized settings involved a system speed increase from 400 to 800. For anteroposterior projection, the optimal tube potential was reduced from the default of 77 kV to 60 kV to give the best image quality without increasing the effective dose, or to 66 kV to give the lowest dose without reducing image quality. For lateral projection, the tube potential was similarly reduced from the default of 90 kV to 70 kV or 77 kV. Visual grading analysis confirmed the results, with significantly better image quality when optimizing for image quality. The study thus shows that the tube potential can be reduced as long as the system speed is increased simultaneously. This leads to a lower effective dose and/or increased image quality depending on the settings chosen. The factorial experiments provided a powerful way to evaluate several parameters concomitantly.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2009 by the British Institute of Radiology.