개에서 복수의 평가에 있어서 필름-증감지 방사선 사진과 디지털 방사선 사진의 비교

Comparison of Direct Digital Radiography and Conventional Film Screen Radiography for Detection of Peritoneal Fluid in Dogs

  • 최호정 (충남대학교 수의과대학 동물의과학연구소) ;
  • 오이세 (충남대학교 수의과대학 동물의과학연구소) ;
  • 이기자 (오비히로 농과대학 임상수의학부) ;
  • 이영원 (충남대학교 수의과대학 동물의과학연구소)
  • Choi, Ho-Jung (College of Veterinary Medicine.Research Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • O, I-Se (College of Veterinary Medicine.Research Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Ki-Ja (Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Young-Won (College of Veterinary Medicine.Research Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University)
  • 심사 : 2012.02.17
  • 발행 : 2012.02.29

초록

디지털 방사선 사진은 촬영 후 영상처리를 통해 대비도를 향상시킬 수 있다. 하지만 복강 내 대비도를 감소시키는 복수가 존재 할 경우, 디지털 방사선 촬영술의 장점이 어떻게 적용되는가에 대한 연구는 부족하다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 다양한 양의 액체를 복강 내 주입한 후, 필름-증감지 사진과 디지털 방사선 사진을 비교 판독하여 두 기법의 복수 검출 능력에 대해 평가하였다. 실험 결과 receiver operation curve를 이용한 평가에서 복수를 검출하는 데 디지털 방사선 촬영술과 필름-증감지 기법 간의 유의적인 차이가 없었지만 필름-증감지 기법이 디지털 방사선 촬영술보다 비교적 높은 정확도를 나타냈다. 곡선 아래 면적은 필름-증감지 기법이 디지털 방사선 촬영술보다 높은 값을 나타내었으며, 대부분의 주입 용량에서 필름-증감지 기법이 디지털 방사선 촬영술보다 더 높은 값의 곡선 아래 면적을 나타냈다. 이러한 결과는 복수의 검출에 있어서 필름-증감지 기법이 디지털 방사선 촬영술보다 다소 민감하다는 것을 의미한다. 이는 판독자가 최적의 영상을 찾는 과정에서 영상의 조절 기능을 통해 소량의 복수에 의해 복부 대비도가 감소된 것을 저평가하게 되는 경향 때문인 것으로 생각된다. 따라서 디지털 방사선 사진을 이용하여 복수를 평가하는 경우, 과도한 대비도 증가와 같은 촬영 후 조절 기능을 사용하는데 주의해야 하며, 초음파와 같은 다른 영상 진단 장비를 사용하여 복수를 확인하는 것을 추천한다.

This study was performed to evaluate the sensitivity of conventional film-screen radiography (CFSR) and direct digital radiography (DDR) for detection of various amounts of free peritoneal fluid. Ten adult male healthy beagles were used in this study. Radiographic examinations were performed in the right lateral and ventrodorsal positions. Fluid was injected in increments of 2.0 ml/kg of body weight up to 20.0 ml/kg of body weight. The images of CFSR and DDR were evaluated by two veterinary radiologists for evidence of abdominal fluid without knowledge of injected fluid volume. Data were evaluated by using the receiver operation curve (ROC) analysis and the area under the curve (AUC). There was no significant difference in detection of peritoneal fluid between DDR and CFSR in the ROC analysis. The accuracy of CFSR (0.805) was relatively higher than that of DDR (0.733), based on the ROC analysis and AUC. AUC of CFSR was higher in most injection doses. These results suggest that CFSR is more accurate than DDR for the detecting peritoneal fluid. Therefore, for situation in which digital radiographs are equivocal or small amount of fluid is suspected, other imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography would be helpful for determining the presence of fluids.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Armbrust LJ. Digital images and digital radiographic image capture. In: Textbook of veterinary diagnostic radiology, 5th ed. St. Louis: Saunders. 2007: 22-27.
  2. Bernhardt TM, Otto D, Reichel G, Ludwig K, Seifert S, Kropf S, Rapp-Bernhardt U. Detection of simulated interstitial lung disease and catheters with selenium, storage phosphor, and film-based radiography. Radiology 1999; 213: 445-454.
  3. Chotas HG, Dobbins JT, Ravin CE. Priciples of digital radiography with large area, electronically readable detector: a review of basics. Radiology 1999; 210: 595-599.
  4. Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Noeldge G, Kampschulte A, Radeleff B, Hosch WP, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: Image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 481-486. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780481
  5. Graham JP, Berry CR, Thrall DE. Technical issues and interpretation principles relating to the canine and feline abdomen. In: Textbook of veterinary diagnostic radiology, 5th ed. St. Louis: Saunders. 2007: 626-634.
  6. James JJ, Davies AG, Cowen AR, O'connor PJ. Developments in digital radiography: an equipment update. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 2616-2626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300100828
  7. Kim JH, Kim TH, Chang JH, Chang DW. Quantitative comparison of computed radiograpy and film radiography in detection of peritoneal effusion in dogs. J Vet Clin 2010; 27: 284-288.
  8. Kotter E, Langer M. Digital radiography with large-area flatpanel detectors. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2562-2570.
  9. Lo WY, Puchalski SM. Digital image processing. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49(S1): S42-S47.
  10. Marlof A, Blaik M, Ackerman N, Watson E, Gibson N, Thompson M. Comparison of computed radiography and conventional radiography in detection of small volume pneumoperitoneum. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49: 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00355.x
  11. Matton JS, Smith C. Breakthroughs in radiography: computer radiography. Compendium 2004; 17: 58-66.
  12. Okamura T, Tanaka S, Koyama K, Norihumi N, Daikokuya H, Matsuoka T, Kishimoto K, Hatagawa M, Kudoh H, Yamada R. Clinical evaluation of digital radiography based on a large-area cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector compared with screen-film radiography for skeletal system and abdomen. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1741-1747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-001-1283-0
  13. Puchalski SM. Image display. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49(S1): S9-S13
  14. Raymond KH, David AH, Norman A. A comparison of two dimensional ultrasound and radiography for the detection of small amounts of free peritoneal fluid in the dog. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1989; 30: 121-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.1989.tb00758.x
  15. Thrall DE. Intraperitoneal vs Extraperitoneal fulid. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1992; 33: 138-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.1992.tb01433.x
  16. Wegryn SA, Piraino DW, Richmond BJ, Schluchter MD, Uetani M, Freed H, Meziane MA, Belhobek GA. Comparison of digital and conventional muschuloskeletal radiography: An observer performance study. Radiology 1990; 175: 225-228.
  17. Widmer WR. Acquisition hardware for digital imaging. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49(S1): S2-S8.