These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Digital X-ray mammography: comparison of the image quality achievable with a wet laser imager, a dry infrared laser imager and a dry laser imager using direct thermography].
    Author: Krug B, Stützer H, Zähringer M, Morgenroth C, Winnekendonk G, Gossmann A, Warm M, Lackner K.
    Journal: Rofo; 2005 Jul; 177(7):955-61. PubMed ID: 15973597.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the image quality of digital X-ray mammographies obtained with wet imagers with that of standard dry imaging technology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Beginning 03/08/2003, 200 X-ray mammographies with a digital fullfield mammography system (Lorad Selenia, Lorad/Hologic) were prospectively and consecutively documented with a wet laser imager (Scopix LR 5200, Agfa), a dry infrared laser imager (DryView 8610, Kodak) and a dry imager using the principle of direct thermography (Drystar 4500M, Agfa, N = 166). One X-ray exposure was systematically chosen from each examination and was presented in an anonymous and randomized form to three radiologists who evaluated the films using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: The visualization of normal anatomic structures was considered being good to excellent for all imagers with the mean assessments 1.0 - 2.4 for the Drystar 4500M, 1.0 - 2.1 for the DryView 8610 and 1.1 - 2.0 for the Scopix LR 5200. The mean assessments were 0.1 - 0.6 points lower in dense than in normal parenchyma, thus, the parenchymal density is the predominant factor for image quality. CONCLUSION: In view of the comparable image quality obtained with the different imagers used in the study, individual decisions to purchase a specific imager will be based on economics rather than on diagnostic points of view.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]