Author: Nathalie Correa, Janet Ching-Mei Feng, Chun-Han Huang, Jimmy Huynh 👨🔬
Affiliation: UTHealth McGovern Medical School 🌍
Purpose: To compare the image quality and the dose-area product (DAP) of four mobile digital radiography (DR) systems—Canon (Soltus 500), Shimadzu (MobileDaRt Evolution MX8), Solution for Tomorrow (M1), and Micro-X (Rover)—and provide insights to help healthcare providers select the most suitable system based on diagnostic performance and radiation exposure.
Methods: Four mobile DR systems were evaluated for common clinical procedures (chest and abdomen) using a 100 cm source-to-image distance with manufacture’s recommended techniques and post-processing. A 35x43 cm field size was used to expose image quality phantom, ensuring that the irradiated area was identical across all systems. The large focal spot was used when available. Image quality and radiation dose (DAP) were assessed with and without a grid, and vendors' specified kVp and mAs were used. Image quality was evaluated using a Ludlum Model L-777 phantom (Ludlum, Sweetwater, TX) with the inserts evaluating spatial resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and uniformity. DAP was extracted from the DICOM header for each image.
Results: Canon achieved the best spatial resolution but required the second-highest radiation dose when using the grid. Shimadzu showed the worst CNR, with the aluminum discs being undetectable and the highest radiation dose in the abdomen procedure. Solution for Tomorrow achieved the second-highest spatial resolution and high CNR without the grid, but image quality deteriorated with the grid due to insufficient mAs, causing quantum mottle. Micro-X achieved the best CNR and lowest dose in the abdomen procedure but had the worst spatial resolution without the grid and second worst with the grid. High uniformity was observed among all four vendors.
Conclusion: This study compared spatial resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio, uniformity, and radiation dose (DAP) across four mobile DR vendors. Healthcare providers should carefully consider these factors to ensure the best balance based on clinical needs and patient safety.