Comparison of radiation dose, workflow, patient comfort and financial break-even of standard digital radiography and a novel biplanar low-dose X-ray system for upright full-length lower limb and whole spine radiography
Tobias J Dietrich, Christian W A Pfirrmann, Alexander Schwab, Katja Pankalla, Florian M Buck, Tobias J Dietrich, Christian W A Pfirrmann, Alexander Schwab, Katja Pankalla, Florian M Buck
Abstract
Objective: To compare the radiation dose, workflow, patient comfort, and financial break-even of a standard digital radiography and a biplanar low-dose X-ray system.
Materials and methods: A standard digital radiography system (Ysio, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) was compared with a biplanar X-ray unit (EOS, EOS imaging, Paris, France) consisting of two X-ray tubes and slot-scanning detectors, arranged at an angle of 90° allowing simultaneous vertical biplanar linear scanning in the upright patient position. We compared data of standing full-length lower limb radiographs and whole spine radiographs of both X-ray systems.
Results: Dose-area product was significantly lower for radiographs of the biplanar X-ray system than for the standard digital radiography system (e.g. whole spine radiographs; standard digital radiography system: 392.2 ± 231.7 cGy*cm(2) versus biplanar X-ray system: 158.4 ± 103.8 cGy*cm(2)). The mean examination time was significantly shorter for biplanar radiographs compared with standard digital radiographs (e.g. whole spine radiographs: 449 s vs 248 s). Patients' comfort regarding noise was significantly higher for the standard digital radiography system. The financial break-even point was 2,602 radiographs/year for the standard digital radiography system compared with 4,077 radiographs/year for the biplanar X-ray unit.
Conclusion: The biplanar X-ray unit reduces radiation exposure and increases subjective noise exposure to patients. The biplanar X-ray unit demands a higher number of examinations per year for the financial break-even point, despite the lower labour cost per examination due to the shorter examination time.
References
- Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):39-44
- AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Jul;195(1):W31-7
- Bull Acad Natl Med. 2005 Feb;189(2):287-97; discussion 297-300
- Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;128(4):389-412
- Radiology. 1996 Nov;201(2):574-5
- Radiology. 2009 Jul;252(1):240-6
- Radiographics. 2007 May-Jun;27(3):675-86
- Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):1193-204
- Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 Feb;95(1):2-11
- J Pediatr Orthop. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1 Suppl):S37-45
- Acta Radiol. 2011 Mar 1;52(2):134-42
- Surg Radiol Anat. 2010 Feb;32(2):153-8
- Skeletal Radiol. 2013 Apr;42(4):493-8
- Int Orthop. 2012 Jun;36(6):1291-7
- Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009 Oct;38(7):484-8
- IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005 Oct;52(10):1756-63
- Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Apr 20;35(9):989-94
- Acta Radiol. 2010 Jul;51(6):693-701
- Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep;20 Suppl 5:602-8
- Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010 May;25(4):284-91
- Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(14):1-188
- AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5):W607-12
- Eur Spine J. 2011 Jan;20(1):135-43
- Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Jun;97(4):373-80
- Skeletal Radiol. 2012 Sep;41(10):1287-93
Source: PubMed