ARTEFACTUAL BEHAVIOUR OF FLUID IN RADIOGRAPHIC DARKROOM PRACTICE
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Before the advent of computed and digital radiography, radiographs were processed in a light-tight darkroom. In spite of advancement in technology which enables film processing without the intermediary of the conventional darkroom, many radiographic centres worldwide, especially in developing countries like Nigeria, still carry out darkroom processing. Liquid chemicals are involved, and their misuse may result in artefacts on the processed radiographs.
Objective: To investigate the artefactual abilities of common darkroom fluids on x-ray films (unprocessed) and radiographs (processed) in a centre transiting from darkroom to computed radiography.
Methods: A total of five thousand, five hundred (5,500) radiographs produced between January to June 2013, and retrieved from the archive were scrutinized retrospectively, with the aid of a viewing box until those with fluid-induced artefacts were identified and isolated. The nature, grayscale appearance and origin of artefacts were arrived at by consensus of the researchers and documented. Divergence in opinion or ambiguous artefacts was resolved through darkroom simulations. Data was analyzed with a simple calculator.
Results: Sixty-one (1.1 %) radiographs with fluid-induced artefacts were noted. Developer caused black artefacts while fixer, water and grease all caused different hue of grey artefacts. Only grease caused artefacts after processing whereas other fluids were inert on them. Water-induced artefacts, as a result of stuck films in the automatic processor had the highest frequency (n = 21; 34.4 %) while water-bed artefact was rare (n = 1; 2 %). The stages at which artefacts were introduced were noted as pre-processing, processing and post-processing, respectively.
Conclusion: All four investigated darkroom fluids are potential artefactual agents. A knowledge of their distinct characteristics on films and radiographs may help to reduce distractions during reporting, as well as serve as guide to effective remedial actions during subsequent darkroom processing.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles in JRRS are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to Cite
References
Adejoh, T., Onwuzu, S. W. I., Nkubli, F. B., & Ikegwuonu, N. C. (2014). Film-screen radiographic artefacts: A paradigm shift in classification. Open Journal of Medical Imaging, 4(4), 108–111.
Akinola, R., Oluwarotimi, A., Jinadu, F., Akintomide, T., Soeze, P., & Asuquo, O. (2008). Artefacts in mammography: A three-year experience in a new teaching hospital. The Internet Journal of Radiology, 8(1).
Kirberger, R. M., & Roos, C. J. (1995). Radiographic artifacts. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 66(2), 85–94.
Caesar, L. J., Schueler, B. A., Zink, F. E., Daly, T. R., Taubel, J. P., & Jorgenson, L. L. (2001). Artefacts found in computed radiography. British Journal of Radiology, 74, 195–202.
Horton, K. M., Johnson, P. T., & Fishman, E. K. (2010). MDCT of the abdomen: Common misdiagnoses at a busy academic center. American Journal of Roentgenology, 194(3), 660–667.
Charloeykitti, L., & Muttarak, M. (2006). Artefacts in mammography: Ways to identify and overcome them. Singapore Medical Journal, 47(7), 634–641.
Eze, K. C., Omodia, N., Okegbunam, B., Adewonyi, T., & Nzotta, C. C. (2008). An audit of rejected repeated X-ray films as a quality assurance element in a radiology department. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 11(4), 355–358.
Hogge, J. P., Palmer, C. H., Muller, C. C., Little, S. T., Smith, D. C., Fatouros, P. P., & de Paredes, E. S. (1999). Quality assurance in mammography: Artifact analysis. RadioGraphics, 19, 503–522.
Waaler, D., & Hoffmann, B. (2010). Image rejects/retakes: Radiographic challenges. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 139(1–3), 375–379.
Achanta, S., Jungk, M., & Drees, D. (2011). Characterisation of cohesion, adhesion, and tackiness of lubricating greases using approach–retraction experiments. Tribology International, 44(10), 1127–1133.