Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Germany.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Apr;198(4):946-54. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7245.
The objective of this study was to compare the performance and radiation doses of a flat-panel detector (FPD) angiography machine with an image intensifier (II) angiography machine.
Images of four nitinol stents (Sinus-SuperFlex, SMART, Luminexx, and Zilver stents) in a phantom of a human pelvis were acquired on an FPD system (Axiom Artis) and an II system (Fluorospot TOP) using the following modes: spot-film, continuous fluoroscopy (4, 7.5, 15, and 30 pulses/s), and three amplification modes. Objective stent detection rates and subjective radiopacity scores (scale: 0 [not visible] to 4 [excellent visibility]) were calculated. The radiation doses evaluated by the respective machines were compared.
Over all modes and stents, the mean objective correct stent detection rates and mean subjective radiopacity scores were 89.49% and 1.81, respectively, for the Axiom Artis and 91.00% and 2.26 for the Fluorospot TOP. The stent detection rates over all modes for the SMART and Luminexx stents were better using the Axiom Artis machine (97.61% vs 93.55% and 98.28% vs 90.41%, respectively) and those for the Sinus-SuperFlex and Zilver stents were better using the Fluorospot TOP machine (90.83% vs 83.56% and 89.29% vs 80.50%). The subjective radiopacity scores of stent visibility were worse for the Axiom Artis than the Fluorospot TOP for all stents except the Luminexx stent (mean score, 2.34 vs 2.21, respectively). The objective stent detection rates and subjective radiopacity scores improved using the spot-film mode and with raising amplification, whereas increases in the fluoroscopy pulsing frequency did not improve stent detection rates or radiopacity scores for either machine. The radiation doses at continuous fluoroscopy were approximately 90% higher for the Axiom Artis than for the Fluorospot TOP (2.60 vs 1.41 μGy/m(2) at 30 pulses/s, respectively).
The objective correct stent detection rates were similar for both machines with differences in detection for the respective stents. The subjective radiopacity scores were almost always better for the Fluorospot TOP machine. Also, the Axiom Artis machine generated approximately 90% higher radiation doses in fluoroscopy. For both machines, using a higher fluoroscopy pulsing frequency had no positive effect on objective correct stent detection rates or subjective radiopacity scores.
本研究旨在比较平板探测器(FPD)血管造影机与影像增强器(II)血管造影机的性能和辐射剂量。
在人体骨盆模型中对四个镍钛诺支架(Sinus-SuperFlex、SMART、Luminexx 和 Zilver 支架)进行 FPD 系统(Axiom Artis)和 II 系统(Fluorospot TOP)的图像采集,采用以下模式:点片、连续透视(4、7.5、15 和 30 脉冲/秒)和三种放大模式。计算客观支架检测率和主观射线不透明度评分(范围:0[不可见]至 4[极好可见])。比较两种机器评估的辐射剂量。
在所有模式和支架中,Axiom Artis 的平均客观正确支架检测率和平均主观射线不透明度评分为 89.49%和 1.81,Fluorospot TOP 的平均客观正确支架检测率和平均主观射线不透明度评分为 91.00%和 2.26。在所有模式下,SMART 和 Luminexx 支架的支架检测率在 Axiom Artis 机器上更好(分别为 97.61%、93.55%和 98.28%、90.41%),而 Sinus-SuperFlex 和 Zilver 支架的支架检测率在 Fluorospot TOP 机器上更好(分别为 90.83%、83.56%和 89.29%、80.50%)。除了 Luminexx 支架外,Axiom Artis 的主观射线不透明度评分在所有支架中均低于 Fluorospot TOP(平均评分分别为 2.34 和 2.21)。使用点片模式和提高放大倍数可提高支架的客观检测率和射线不透明度评分,而两种机器的透视脉冲频率增加都不会提高支架检测率或射线不透明度评分。在连续透视时,Axiom Artis 的辐射剂量约比 Fluorospot TOP 高 90%(分别为 30 脉冲/秒时的 2.60 μGy/m2 和 1.41 μGy/m2)。
两种机器的客观正确支架检测率相似,但各自的支架检测率存在差异。主观射线不透明度评分几乎总是 Fluorospot TOP 机器更好。此外,Axiom Artis 机器产生的透视辐射剂量约高 90%。对于两种机器,使用更高的透视脉冲频率对客观正确支架检测率或主观射线不透明度评分没有积极影响。