Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they?

By J. Anthony Seibert


Interventional and fluoroscopic imaging procedures for pediatric patients are becoming more prevalent because of the less-invasive nature of these procedures compared to alternatives such as surgery. Flat-panel X-ray detectors (FPD) for fluoroscopy are a new technology alternative to the image intensifier/TV (II/TV) digital system that has been in use for more than two decades. Two major FPD technologies have been implemented, based on indirect conversion of X-rays to light (using an X-ray scintillator) and then to proportional charge (using a photodiode), or direct conversion of X-rays into charge (using a semiconductor material) for signal acquisition and digitization. These detectors have proved very successful for high-exposure interventional procedures but lack the image quality of the II/TV system at the lowest exposure levels common in fluoroscopy. The benefits for FPD image quality include lack of geometric distortion, little or no veiling glare, a uniform response across the field-of-view, and improved ergonomics with better patient access. Better detective quantum efficiency indicates the possibility of reducing the patient dose in accordance with ALARA principles. However, first-generation FPD devices have been implemented with less than adequate acquisition flexibility (e.g., lack of tableside controls/information, inability to easily change protocols) and the presence of residual signals from previous exposures, and additional cost of equipment and long-term maintenance have been serious impediments to purchase and implementation. Technological advances of second generation and future hybrid FPD systems should solve many current issues. The answer to the question ‘how much better are they?–is ‘significantly better– and they are certainly worth consideration for replacement or new implementation of an imaging suite for pediatric fluoroscopy

Topics: Alara
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

Suggested articles


  1. (2001). Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems—a contrast-detail phantom study.
  2. (2002). direct detection active matrix x-ray image sensors.
  3. (2005). Dynamic flat panel detector versus image intensifier in cardiac imaging: dose and image quality.
  4. (2002). Essential physics of medical imaging.
  5. (2004). Evaluation of the imaging properties of an amorphous selenium-based flat panel detector for digital fluoroscopy.
  6. (1942). Fluoroscopes and fluoroscopy.
  7. (1948). Fluoroscopic image brightening by electronic means.
  8. (2005). Fluoroscopy acceptance testing: technical considerations for image quality and dose.
  9. (2001). Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography.
  10. (2005). Indirect flat-panel detector with avalanche gain: fundamental feasibility investigation for SHARP–AMFPI (scintillator HARP active matrix flat panel imager).
  11. (2002). Intervascular brachytherapy/ fluoroscopically guided interventions.
  12. (2006). Pediatric interventional radiography equipment: safety considerations.
  13. (2003). Performance of a 41×41 cm 2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector designed for angiographic and R&F imaging applications.
  14. (2006). Philips flat detector technology. Philips Medical Systems,
  15. (1933). Radiographic recording media and screens. In: Glasser O (ed) The science of radiology. Charles C.
  16. (1992). Radiology, an illustrated history. Chapter 10: dark adaptation and image intensification.
  17. (2001). Threshold contrast detail detectability measurement of the fluoroscopic image quality of a dynamic solid-state digital X-ray detector.
  18. (1997). X-ray detectors for digital radiography.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.