Main Article Content
OBJECTIVE. To evaluate the workflow efficiency between CR vs. wireless flat-panel DR systems for routine checkup Chest posterior- anterior (PA) erect position examinations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. On routine checkup Chest PA view erect position. The work flow steps of CR and wireless flat- panel DR system were identified, including examination preparation, patient positioning, exposure, post-acquisition processing and total examination time were recorded. We only included post-acquisition processing time because time from exposure to appearance of imaging is relatively fixed.
RESULTS. A total of 476 patients were examined (CR, n = 244; DR, n = 232). The total time of procedure for CR system was 86.2- 96.2 seconds. For the DR system it was 17.6-19.5 seconds.
CONCLUSION. Workflow efficiency of DR system is better than CR system in routine chest examination. Modern radiologic departments require a DR system.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Körner M, Weber CH, Wirth S, et al. Advances in digitalradiography: physical principles and system overview Radiographics 2007;27:675-86.
3. Lehnert T, Naguib NN, Ackermann H, et al. Novel, Portable, Cassette-Sized, and Wireless Flat-Panel Digital Radiography System: Initial Workflow Results Versus Computed Radiography. AJR 2011;196:1368-71.
4. Puig S, Digital radiography of the chest in pediatric patients. Radiology 2003;43:1045-50.
5. Rapp-Bernhardt U, Bernhardt TM, Lenzen H, et al. Experimental evaluation of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for the pediatric chest: comparison with storage phosphor radiography at different exposures by using a chest phantom. Radiology 2005;237:485-91.
6. Rapp-Berhandt U, Roehl FW, Esseling R, et al. Portable flat-panel detector for low-dose imaging in a pediatric intensive care unit: comparison with a symmetric filmscreen system. Invest Radiol 2005;40:736-41.
7. Andriole KP, Luth DM, Gould RG. Workflow assessment of digital versus computed radiography and screen-film in the outpatient environment. J Digit Imaging 2002;15 (suppl I):124-6.
8. Dackiewicz D, Bergsneider C, Piraino D. Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow and patient satisfaction. J Digit Imaging 2000;13(suppl I):200-1.
9. Mack S, Holstein J, Kleber K, et al. New aspects of imaging distribution and workflow in radiology. J Digit Imaging 2000;13:17-21.
10. Reiner BI, Siegal EL, Hooper FJ, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of computed and direct radiography. Part I. Technologist productivity. Radiology 2005;236:413-9.
11. Lehnert T, Naguib NN, Ackermann H, et al. Novel, Portable, Cassette-Sized, and Wireless Flat-Panel Digital Radiography System: Initial Workflow Results Versus Computed Radiography. AJR 2011;196:1368-71.
12. Suchato C, Tularatrueangnam N, Panyawong S. Design of digital radiographic rooms for general diagnostic purposes. The Bangkok Medical Journal 2011;2:88-94.