Skip Navigation



Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access published online on May 10, 2008
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, doi:10.1093/rpd/ncn138
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
129/1-3/123    most recent
ncn138v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dimov, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vassileva, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dimov, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vassileva, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF A NEW DIGITAL IMAGE INTENSIFIER FLUOROSCOPY SYSTEM

A. Dimov* and J. Vassileva

Laboratory for Dosimetry and Quality Control at Medical Exposure, National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, 132 Kliment Ohridsky blvd., Sofia 1756, Bulgaria

* Corresponding author: a.dimov_sl{at}yahoo.com

The aim of this study is to assess the physical properties of a recently installed digital fluoroscopy unit, Axiom Iconos R200 unit (Siemens, Germany), including image quality and patient dose. Image quality parameters and patient doses were measured at various fields of view (FOV) and frame rates. The entrance surface dose rate (ESDR) was measured using standard 30 x 30 cm2 polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom with different thicknesses. The ESDR was measured using a 20 cm PMMA and largest FOV ranged from 1.1 to 8.2 mGy min–1 for different frame rates available. The low-contrast sensitivity varied from 1.8 to 6.6%, as the limiting spatial resolution changes from 1.25 to 2.24 ln mm–1 for the different magnifications, frame rates and phantom thicknesses. This study shows the weak points of the standard quality control protocols. The additional image quality and dose assessments revealed the existing potential for optimisation of the system.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.