Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality control assessment of Philips digital radiography and comparison with Spellman and Samsung systems in Tehran Oil Ministry Hospital

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The European Physical Journal Plus Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the most important steps in the optimization process in diagnostic imaging is the quality control (QC) of digital radiology devices. The defects of irradiation diagnostic devices in the framework of QC programs were assessed in imaging centers of Tehran province. To perform this schedule, various parameters such as kVp, milli-Ampere (mA), irradiation time, HVL, and additional filters were evaluated by three qualitative control tests. By using Pehamed phantom, Piranha dosimeter, and response time index, the QC of three radiological devices from three different companies—Samsung, Spellman, and Philips—was measured for the first time in Iran. The data obtained through the imagej software were analyzed. Different parameters including dynamic range, contrast, spatial resolution, beam quality, and homogeneity were compared from three devices. The HVL for Al was measured at 2.85 mm over the beam quality. Increasing the voltage increased the HVL so that the constant coefficients for PMX-III and a new electronic multimeter were 0.0787 and 0.0786, correspondingly. Also by raising dose, the irradiation index increased for different kVp and Al-HVL. The pixel values in different ROIs were assessed as there was no discrepancy at the center, but the greatest difference was emerged by 5.329 on the left. Of the pair of lead lines available in the phantom with size of 0.5–5 lp/mm at 45\(^\circ \), 2.8 line pairs were completely separate to determine the resolution. Also, of the 16 copper sheets with thicknesses from 0 to 3.5, all sheets with thicknesses of 0.36 to 3.48 mm were visible. The coefficient of variation (CV) and the noise fluctuations were calculated for the adjusted voltage, irradiation time, and the output dose. At 100 mA, the maximum CV of the output dose was 0.0074 for 90 kVp-80 ms. The outcomes demonstrated that the Philips digital imaging system is of fairly good quality in all QC tests. Comparatively, the patient absorbed dose with the Spellman X-ray machine was less than with the other two devices. By recorded doses in assessment of linearity detector response, the Samsung and Philips machines demonstrated a great regression coefficient of 99% at different exposures. Improving quality control standards may improve diagnostic quality, reduce the number of repeated tests, and reduce patient exposure.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M.S. Shandiz, M.T. Bahreyni Toossi, S. Farsi, K. Yaghobi, Local reference dose evaluation in conventional radiography examinations in Iran. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 15(2), 303–310 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i2.4550

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. Khaleghi, J. Soltani-Nabipour, A. Khorshidi, F. Taheri, Design of band-pass filters by experimental and simulation methods at the range of 100–125 keV of X-ray in fluoroscopy. Int. J. Biomed. Technol. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBET.2019.10025733

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Khorshidi, M. Ashoor, S.H. Hosseini, A. Rajaee, Evaluation of collimators’ response: round and hexagonal holes in parallel and fan beam. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 109, 59–66 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2012.03.003

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Ashoor, A. Khorshidi, Evaluation of crystals’ morphology on detection efficiency using modern classification criterion and Monte Carlo method in nuclear medicine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. A Phys. Sci. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-018-0482-x

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. Rasuli, A. Mahmoud-Pashazadeh, M.J. Tahmasebi Birgani, M. Ghorbani, M. Naserpour, J. Fatahi-Asl, Quality control of conventional radiology devices in selected hospitals of Khuzestan Province, Iran. Iran. J. Med. Phys. 12(2), 101–108 (2015). https://doi.org/10.22038/ijmp.2015.4773

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Walsh, D. Gorman, P. Byrne, A. Larkin, A. Dowling, J.F. Malone, Quality assurance of computed and digital radiography systems. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 129(1–3), 271–275 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncn047

    Google Scholar 

  7. S.F. Moey, A.Z. Shazli, I. Shah Sayed, N. Goharian, S. Moghimi, H. Kalani, N. Vaezi, The practice of chest radiography using different digital imaging systems: dose and image quality. Iran. J. Med. Phys. 15, 101–107 (2018). https://doi.org/10.22038/ijmp.2017.25424.1259

    Google Scholar 

  8. Z. Jomehzadeh, A. Jomehzadeh, M.B. Tavakoli, Quality control assessment of radiology devices in Kerman Province, Iran. Iran. J. Med. Phys. 13(1), 25–35 (2016). https://doi.org/10.22038/ijmp.2016.7142

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.S. Nabipour, A. Khorshidi, Spectroscopy and optimizing semiconductor detector data under X and \(\upgamma \) photons using image processing technique. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 49(2), 194–200 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2018.01.004

    Google Scholar 

  10. International Atomic Energy Agency. Optimization of the radiological protection of patients undergoing radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography. IAEA-TECDOC-1423. pp. 20–41 (2004)

  11. V. Karami, M. Zabihzadeh, Radiation protection in diagnostic X-Ray imaging departments in Iran: a systematic review of published articles. J. Mazandaran Univ. Med. Sci. 26(135), 175–188 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Khorshidi, Accelerator-based methods in radio-material 99Mo/99mTc production alternatives by Monte Carlo method: the scientific-expedient considerations in nuclear medicine. J. Multiscale Model 10(1), 1930001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1756973719300016

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Khorshidi, Radiochemical parameters of molybdenum-99 transmutation in cyclotron-based production method using a neutron activator design for nuclear-medicine aims. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 249 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12568-3

    Google Scholar 

  14. J.T. Bushberg, J.A. Seibert, E.M.J. Leidholdt, J.M. Boone, The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, 3rd edn. (Lippincott Willams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. X-ray Analyser Multimeter, RTI Piranha ReferenceManual.https://www.rtigroup.com/content/ downloads/manuals/Manuals%20Old%20Versions/Piranha%20Reference%20Manual%20-%20English %20-%20v5.5E.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  16. C.J. Martin, Optimisation in general radiography. Biomed. Imaging Interv. J. 3(2), e18 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2349/biij.3.2.e18

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Khorshidi, A. Abdollahi, A. Pirouzi, S.H. Hosseini, Band pass filter plan in fluoroscopy for high energy range. SN Appl. Sci. 2(1), 90 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1885-2

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pehamed FLUORAD A+D. Test Phantom for digital and analog Fluoroscopy according to new DIN 6868-4. 2007. http://www.pehamed.de/index.php?PAGE=produkte&LAN=2&CTID=22. Accessed 25 Apr 2011

  19. H. Schiabel, M. A. C. Vieira, N. S. M. Curi, A new portable electronic device for single exposure half-value layer measurement, in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 23–28 July, Chicago IL 2000: 2510-2512. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2000.901336

  20. J. Soltani-Nabipour, A. Khorshidi, F. Sadeghi, Constructing environmental radon gas detector and measuring concentration in residential buildings. Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 16(6), 789–795 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1134/S154747711906030X

    Google Scholar 

  21. N. Gharehaghaji, D. Khezerloo, T. Abbasiazar, Image quality assessment of the digital radiography units in Tabriz, Iran: a phantom study. J. Med. Signals Sens. 9(2), 137 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  22. H. Rahanjam, H. Gharaati, M. Kardan, B. Fasaee, A. Akbarzadeh, Estimation of doses for all types of patients in common diagnostic X-ray examinations. Casp. J. Health Res. 2(1), 44–53 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. Khorshidi, B. Khosrowpour, S.H. Hosseini, Determination of defect depth in industrial radiography imaging using MCNP code and SuperMC software. Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.12.010

    Google Scholar 

  24. S. Rastegar, J. Beigi, E. Saeidi, A. Dezhkam, T. Mobaderi, H. Ghaffari, A. Mehdipour, H. Abdollahi, Reject analysis in digital radiography: a local study on radiographers and students’ attitude in Iran. Med. J. Islam. Repub. Iran 33, 49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.34171/mjiri.33.49

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. Khorshidi, M. Ashoor, Modulation transfer function assessment in parallel beam and fan beam collimators with square and cylindrical holes. Ann. Nucl. Med. 28(4), 363–370 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-014-0820-2

    Google Scholar 

  26. A. Asgari, M. Ashoor, L. Sarkhosh, A. Khorshidi, P. Shokrani, Determination of gamma camera’s calibration factors for quantitation of diagnostic radionuclides in simultaneous scattering and attenuation correction. Curr. Radiopharm. 12(1), 29–39 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874471011666180914095222

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. Paydar, A. Takavar, M.R. Kardan, A. Babakhani, M.R. Deevband, S. Saber, Patient effective dose evaluation for chest X-ray examination in three digital radiography centers. Iran. J. Radiat. Res. 10(3–4), 139–143 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. Salát, D. Nikodemová, Patient doses and image quality in digital chest radiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 129(1–3), 147–9 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncn032

    Google Scholar 

  29. A.K. Khoshnazar, P. Hejazi, M. Mokhtarian, S. Nooshi, Quality control of radiography equipments in Golestan Province of Iran. Iran. J. Med. Phys. 10(1), 37–44 (2013). https://doi.org/10.22038/ijmp.2013.917

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. Gholami, F. Nemati, V. Karami, The evaluation of conventional X-ray exposure parameters including tube voltage and exposure time in private and governmental hospitals of Lorestan Province, Iran. Iran. J. Med. Phys. 12(2), 85–92 (2015). https://doi.org/10.22038/ijmp.2015.4770

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No involvement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Radiation Engineering Department, Faculty of Computer and Information Technology, Islamic Azad University, Parand Branch, Parand, Iran

    Navid Banihashemi, Jamshid Soltani-Nabipour & Abdollah Khorshidi

  2. School of Paramedical, Gerash University of Medical Sciences, Gerash, Iran

    Abdollah Khorshidi

  3. Faculties of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

    Hossein Mohammadi

Authors
  1. Navid Banihashemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jamshid Soltani-Nabipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdollah Khorshidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hossein Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdollah Khorshidi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Banihashemi, N., Soltani-Nabipour, J., Khorshidi, A. et al. Quality control assessment of Philips digital radiography and comparison with Spellman and Samsung systems in Tehran Oil Ministry Hospital. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 269 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00275-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00275-1

Search

Navigation