X-rays get boost from "dark field" technology
By Donald Melanson 
posted Jan 22nd 2008 2:05PM
posted Jan 22nd 2008 2:05PM
While it may not give you quite the graphic glimpse as some of the recent CT scanners we've seen, a group of researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark think their new and improved x-ray system still won't have any trouble catching on, and the results are certainly hard to argue with. The key to those sharper pics, it seems, is so-called "dark field microscopy," a technique that, as NewScientist points out, is normally used by biologists. As you might expect, however, there's some upsides and downsides to this particular technique. On the plus side, all that's needed is a simple set of four silicon filters in addition to some standard x-ray equipment. Unfortunately, those four filters mean you also have to take four separate images to get one clear image, giving the patient quite the extra dose of radiation. Even so, the researchers say there are some circumstances where that would be justified, including using the technology to give airport screeners a better peek at potential explosives.
I'm an Xray tech and it would be hell to implement on actual patients. I can see how it could be useful to airport security but taking 4 identical shots on an inanimate object is one thing. But a drunk, injured, or unresponsive patient is a whole nother animal. And no dept in the world is going to spend the money on it just for extremity work.
And just to put the idea of dose into perspective.
The background equivalent radiation time for a lumbar spine study is 9 months to a year's worth of natural radiation you'd receive just by walking around at home or on the street only given in 10 minutes time. Multiply that by 4 and you get more radiation then you would if you would have taken a C.T. scan.
I build real time light industrial microfocus x-ray equipment.
I think this method is a great idea. The currently described implementation of the method that multiplies the subject's dose is a very basic one. Improving it is only an engineering problem. If you're going to invent a new kind of radiography that is truly superior the way this is, why design the equipment around the old type of medical equip? That's what's causing the problems here.
I'd use a high speed chopper wheel with the 4 filters on it, spinning in sync with 4 rapid flashes of a Flash x-ray source while capturing the series of images in a computer where they're mathematically combined into a single Dark Field interferometry format using software. This could be done so quickly that the subjects' dose could be the same or even far less than that of a standard medical image.
Chopper wheels have been used in flying spot type security x-ray scanners for many years. In fact, the 1st airport scanners from the late 60s used Pb chopper wheels and some still do. For instance, the AS&E company owns a design they call "Z Backscatter" that yields wide band fluorescence images at the same time it makes the familiar transmission images in the same machine. That's similar to what this new method does but with much lower resolution. AS&E makes a large high energy backscatter system that is mounted inside a truck. If parked outside, the machine could be used to see inside of a building and NO other apparatus is required on the opposite side of the building because it images the backscatter and fluorescence radiation emitted by the subject as it is scanned by a "pencil thin" beam or "flying spot" of 1MV X-ray. That is not new.
By the way, My ideas are the property of Joe Sitter of Imaging Science & Technology.
to me, the one on the right looks just like the one on the left with edge enhancing and contrast added in photoshop...
Well, thats the idea.
I think in some situations this could be useful, but you can see that in the picture above there is little differnce.
However, since i'm not a radiologist, i really don't know.
I'm no radiologist either, but I think it would make spotting hairline fractures and subtle bone deformities/injuries way easier.
I'm sure the reason they're developing it is because it's much easier to spot fractures and breaks. but I've never had a time where my doctor had trouble spotting a fracture in the first place, seems like they're fixing something that isn't broke.
I'd rather have an unnoticed fracture than radiation sickness anyways.
Are you kiddin?
What do you expect, a 3D rotating image?
This is a huge step-up from traditional x-ray!
The bigger questions is: what the hell is that thing?
Left overs from KFC
It's the squeedlyspooch.
@Bobs: Now I'm thankful to be vegetarian ;)
@fruition
LOL nice Zim joke!
Mod the guy up if you get it.
You saw Cloverfied didn't you....
Join the dark side... We have chicken wings! Mmmmm
Something, Something. Something, Something the dark side.
Does anyone else see the Atlanta Falcons logo? Vick is broken!!
It's a chicken wing. I'm just waiting for Arnold to come crashing through it when they see his gun.
Are you sure? how many bones does a chicken really need to have in its wing?
greedy bastards.
Mmm... Did somebody say chicken wing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding
NO THANKS. If I want an extra dose of radiation, I'll just whip out my cell phone which may or may not give me a tumor.
The biggest difference between a cellphone and an x-ray is that you're receiving small doses of microwave radiation rather than accumulated doses of ionizing x-ray radiation.
Getting a single x-ray here and there isn't a cause for concern, but prolonged use (ie- if you're a physician or radiologist in the room) is. I've met EP cardiologists who have been exposed to x-rays on a daily basis for 20 years who have substantial radiation scars on their arms and hands from prolonged use (many just wear lead vests without arm protection). Somehow I don't think they'll be thrilled to hear that they can now do the same damage in 5 years.
I think we should rather focus on better imaging through LESS harmful doses of radiation.
Pfft, a little radiation never hurt anybody.
weren't you around for chernobyl?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
So in a way, it is similar to the old Technicolor cameras in film. Had to shoot with a green roll, red roll and a blue roll then merge them together.
Thats pretty cool, but can it detect what kinda hot sauce is on that wing?
I wonder if there are some mamography applications here.
4 times the dose? No. Not a good thing.
What seems to be aesthetically pleasing for a layman is not necessarily better for a physician. As someone, who has some experience in radiology I'd say the "enhanced" image is less valuable in terms of clinical diagnostics.
Perhaps for mummies and fossils? No thanks for the od on radiation just use the original and apply the filters to the film, more expensive yes, safer yes...
As a soon to practicing radiologist, I doubt this will have much of an impact on our practice. Digital radiography is fairly widely used and encompasses a majority of radiological imaging done. It is cheap and relatively low in radiation. Applying this technique to extremity films may be helpful but most fracture or bone abnormalities are fairly easy to spot by a good radiologist. The additional radiation dosage to the individual patient would likely not be very significant as most xray of these parts are dealing with relatively radioresisitant tissue (as opposed to breasts and gonads).
Still, most radiographs are evaluated at time long after a patient has left the building and to do this prospectively would be difficult unless the patient was in the ER and we requested additional imaging. Probably not worth the investment for most radiology departments.
In situations where just an extra bit of information is required, this could be ideal. It will still be hundreds (yes, hundreds) of times less radiation than a CT. As long as this technique isn't used as standard, it could be a very useful tool. Of course, we live in a world where some think that whole body CTs are a great idea for a check up...
This reminds me of 'The Pursuit Of Happiness'
As a radiologist, I am interested in new imaging technologies, and some hold promise in clinical imaging. However, the image of the dismembered chicken wing does very little to suggest that this technology would ever be useful in medical imaging. If this technique is ever validated by prospective, randomized, controlled studies that show a significant enough advantage over current conventional radiography to justify the dramatically increased radiation dose, THEN this company should come out with their bold claims.