Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on February 3, 2006
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 117(1-3):93-96; doi:10.1093/rpd/nci746
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison of a CCD and a flat-panel digital system in an Interventional Cardiology Laboratory
1 Medical Physics Department, Konstantopoulio Agia Olga Hospital, 3-5 Agias Olgas, Nea Ionia, 14233 Athens, Greece
2 Medical Physics Department, Medical School, Athens University, 75 Mikras Asias Str, 11527 Athens, Greece
3 Cardiology Department, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, 356 Sygrou Avenue, 17674 Athens, Greece
4 Medical Physics Department, Regional Athens General Hospital G.Gennimatas, 154 Mesogeion Avenue, 11527 Athens, Greece
* Corresponding author: skottou{at}med.uoa.gr
We evaluated the performances of angiographic units equipped with a flat-panel (FP) detector and image intensifier (II) charge-coupled device (CCD) in the Interventional Cardiology (IC) Department. Entrance dose rate and dose per image, along with the dose at the II level were measured using 2 mm copper sheets to simulate a patient. Image quality (IQ) was evaluated using a phantom. Doses increased with fluoroscopy level changing from low to high. FP presented higher doses than CCD. Periodic measurements showed differences of up to 35%. Low mode IQ did not significantly differ from normal and high mode for both systems. Low fluoroscopy mode was decided to be used routinely. Both X-ray systems performed within international recommendations for conventional systems with the exception of higher cine radiation doses and II dose rates, stressing the fact that more studies are required to investigate whether dose levels should be adjusted.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
V TSAPAKI, P N MANIATIS, A MAGGINAS, V VOUDRIS, S PATSILINAKOS, T VRANZTA, E VANO, and D S COKKINOS What are the clinical and technical factors that influence the kerma-area product in percutaneous coronary intervention? Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2008; 81(972): 940 - 945. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Mavrikou, S. Kottou, V. Tsapaki, and V. Neofotistou HIGH PATIENT DOSES IN INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY DUE TO PHYSICIANS' NEGLIGENCE: HOW CAN THEY BE PREVENTED? Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 12, 2008; (2008) ncn005v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Tsapaki, S. Patsilinakos, V. Voudris, A. Magginas, S. Pavlidis, T. Maounis, G. Theodorakis, M. Koutelou, T. Vrantza, M. Nearchou, et al. Level of patient and operator dose in the largest cardiac centre in Greece Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 71 - 73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Tsapaki, R. Padovani, E. Vano, A. Schreiner, M. Molfetas, V. Neofotistou, and S. Kottou Commissioning and constancy protocols for digital angiographic units Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 258 - 260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Padovani, A. Trianni, C. Bokou, H. Bosmans, J. Jankowski, S. Kottou, K. Kepler, J. Malone, V. Tsapaki, D. Salat, et al. Survey on performance assessment of cardiac angiography systems Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 108 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||

