两款移动DR临床应用的性能比较  

A Comparison of Quality of Two Different Kinds of Moved DR in Clinical Application

作　　者：黄邻彬[1] 申燕艳[1] 夏东[1] 

机构地区：[1]广西医科大学第一附属医院放射科,广西南宁530027

出　　处：《医疗装备》2017年第14期12-13,共2页Medical Equipment

摘　　要：目的探讨折叠臂有线平板非晶硅(硫氧化钆)移动DR(A款),与旋转伸缩臂无线平板非晶硅(碘化铯)移动DR(B款)的临床应用效果。方法在ICU病房分别使用两款DR随机进行床旁胸部摄影,各50例,移动DR至目标病床开始计时,直至完成摄影离开目标病床计时终止,计时时间视为完成一例床旁摄影检查所需时间;摄影条件固定源像距100 cm,摄影电压55 k V,只改变m As值,以达到预定的图像质量要求:图像整体显示从肩膀的软组织、胸廓的软组织至胸椎的椎体、椎间隙均能层次分明清楚显示,心影重叠肺纹理隐约可见,心脏、纵隔、横膈边缘锐利,肋骨、肺野黑化度适中。按预定的评价标准在PACS阅片工作站比较两组照片影像显示效果、曝光量m As值及操控设备所需时间。结果两组的影像显示效果没有差异,均能达到预定的评价标准;而两组接受的X线量及操控设备耗时比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05):每完成一例检查,耗时平均值A款机为(400.1±60.3)s,B款机为(200.2±30.0)s;曝光X线量m As平均值A款机为(3.823±0.634)m As,B款机为(1.638±0.246)m As。结论比较设备操控的耗时及患者接受X线量,B款移动DR明显优于A款移动DR。Objective To investigate the different effectiveness between the folding arm cable tablet amorphous silicon（ sulfur gadolinium oxide） mobile DR（ type A） and the rotary telescopic jib wireless tablet amorphous silicon（ cesium iodide） mobile DR（ type B） in clinical application. Methods 50 patients were examined by two moved DRin ICU respectively. The examined time was defined as the period from DRwas moved beside to the objective bed to it was moved apart from the bed after examination. The photography condition was defined as the stationary sources distance was 100 cm and voltage was 55 kv,only the m As value was changed for consensus on image quality requirements： firstly,the mental image overlap lung texture faintly was visible,the soft tissue from the shoulder and thoracic to thoracic vertebral body and intervertebral disc were all clearly showed. Besides, the heart, mediastinum, diaphragmatic sharp edge, rib, lung field black coefficient were all moderate. The two groups of images were read at predetermined evaluation standard in PACS workstation including exposure time needed for m As value and control equipment S. Results In these cases,both of two groups had not really different in the images display that al can achieve to the predetermined evaluation standard; And both of two groups for X-ray and manipulation of the time-consuming equipment were significant differently（ P〈0.05）： average time for type A was（400. 1 ± 60. 3） seconds and for type B was（200. 2 ± 30. 0） seconds; X-ray exposure quantity m As average for type A was（3. 823 ± 0. 634） m As and for type B was（1. 638 ± 0. 246） m As. Conclusion As to equipment time consumption and patients receiving amount of X-ray,type B mobile DRis better than a mobile DR.

关 键 词：移动DR 床旁摄影 无线平板探测器 

分 类 号：TH774[机械工程—仪器科学与技术]