Browse > Article

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

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Veterinary Clinics / v.29, no.1, 2012 , pp. 18-22 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
direct digital radiography; film-screen radiography; abdominal effusion; dog;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 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.
5 James JJ, Davies AG, Cowen AR, O'connor PJ. Developments in digital radiography: an equipment update. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 2616-2626.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 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.
7 Kotter E, Langer M. Digital radiography with large-area flatpanel detectors. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2562-2570.
8 Lo WY, Puchalski SM. Digital image processing. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49(S1): S42-S47.
9 Matton JS, Smith C. Breakthroughs in radiography: computer radiography. Compendium 2004; 17: 58-66.
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Puchalski SM. Image display. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49(S1): S9-S13
13 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.   DOI
14 Thrall DE. Intraperitoneal vs Extraperitoneal fulid. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1992; 33: 138-140.   DOI
15 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.
16 Widmer WR. Acquisition hardware for digital imaging. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49(S1): S2-S8.
17 Armbrust LJ. Digital images and digital radiographic image capture. In: Textbook of veterinary diagnostic radiology, 5th ed. St. Louis: Saunders. 2007: 22-27.