Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality

Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality

Purpose To compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles. Methods The study was conducted in a Dutch mammographic screening unit (288 women). To compare both paddles one additional image with RP was made, consist...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European radiology Vol. 25; no. 3; pp. 821 - 829
Main Authors: Broeders, Mireille J. M., ten Voorde, Marloes, Veldkamp, Wouter J. H., van Engen, Ruben E., van Landsveld – Verhoeven, Cary, ’t Jong – Gunneman, Machteld N. L., de Win, Jos, Greve, Kitty Droogh-de, Paap, Ellen, den Heeten, Gerard J.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-03-2015
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects:
Aged
Breast
Breast - pathology
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
Diagnostic Radiology
Female
Humans
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Mammography - instrumentation
Mammography - methods
Mammography - standards
Medical screening
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Neuroradiology
Observer Variation
Pain
Pain - etiology
Pain - prevention & control
Radiation
Radiation Dosage
Radiology
Radiology - statistics & numerical data
Sensors
Software
Ultrasound
Women
Netherlands
Rigid compression paddle
Mammography
Compression paddle
Flexible compression paddle
Performance
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles. Methods The study was conducted in a Dutch mammographic screening unit (288 women). To compare both paddles one additional image with RP was made, consisting of either a mediolateral-oblique (MLO) or craniocaudal-view (CC). Pain experience was scored using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Projected breast area was estimated using computer software. Radiation dose was estimated using the model by Dance. Image quality was reviewed by three radiologists and three radiographers. Results There was no difference in pain experience between both paddles (mean difference NRS: 0.08 ± 0.08, p  = 0.32). Mean radiation dose was 4.5 % lower with FP (0.09 ± 0.01 p  = 0.00). On MLO-images, the projected breast area was 0.79 % larger with FP. Paired evaluation of image quality indicated that FP removed fibroglandular tissue from the image area and reduced contrast in the clinically relevant retroglandular area at chest wall side. Conclusions Although FP performed slightly better in the projected breast area, it moved breast tissue from the image area at chest wall side. RP showed better contrast, especially in the retroglandular area. We therefore recommend the use of RP for standard MLO and CC views. Key points • Pain experience showed no difference between flexible and rigid breast compression paddles. • Flexible paddles do not depict clinically relevant retroglandular areas as well. • Flexible paddles move breast tissue from image area at the chest wall side. • Rigid paddles depict more breast tissue and shows better contrast. • Rigid breast compression paddles are recommended for standard mediolateral-oblique and craniocaudal views.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:0938-7994
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-014-3422-4