Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Children's Orthopaedics 1/2009

01-02-2009 | Original Clinical Article

Digital imaging data on CD-R: a time trap for orthopaedic surgeons in outpatient clinics

Authors: Stephanie Juenemann, Carol Hasler, Reinald Brunner

Published in: Journal of Children's Orthopaedics | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

X-rays are presented on CD-Rs in a digital format with increasing frequency. This technique is potentially more time-consuming for the clinician compared to conventional pictures.

Methods

Ten sets of six X-rays for each case were prepared in both the conventional way and in digital format on CD-R. The order was randomised. Time in seconds was measured for six experienced orthopaedic residents to present the most recent a.p. view out of a given set. As a precondition, the computer was turned on and the same viewing software was used for all digital sets. The results were compared using a non-linked Student’s t-test (significance level P = 0.05).

Results

The presentation of conventional X-rays required 21 s (±7.5 s) and of digital X-rays 90 s (±27 s), respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In spite of ideal conditions, digital X-rays on CD-R need significantly more time in the orthopaedic clinic. In major centres, patients present with different software and software in other languages, which increase the required time even further. This latter problem will be assessed in another study. This increase of preparation time required by a highly qualified staff member has implications on the economics and logistics and has a negative impact on daily clinical practice. One of the solutions might be that the CD-Rs be given to the registration desk and the data being already prepared when the patient sees the doctor. This can also include it being implemented in the digital system used in the inpatient part of the hospital and, therefore, making any other consultations or second opinions easily accessible.
Literature
1.
go back to reference van Ooijen PM, Roosjen R, de Blecourt MJ et al (2006) Evaluation of the use of CD-ROM upload into the PACS or institutional web server. J Digit Imaging 19(Suppl 1):72–77CrossRef van Ooijen PM, Roosjen R, de Blecourt MJ et al (2006) Evaluation of the use of CD-ROM upload into the PACS or institutional web server. J Digit Imaging 19(Suppl 1):72–77CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Andriole KP (2002) Productivity and cost assessment of computed radiography, digital radiography, and screen-film for outpatient chest examinations. J Digit Imaging 15(3):161–169CrossRef Andriole KP (2002) Productivity and cost assessment of computed radiography, digital radiography, and screen-film for outpatient chest examinations. J Digit Imaging 15(3):161–169CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Andriole KP, Luth DM, Gould RG (2002) Workflow assessment of digital versus computed radiography and screen-film in the outpatient environment. J Digit Imaging 15(Suppl 1):124–126CrossRef Andriole KP, Luth DM, Gould RG (2002) Workflow assessment of digital versus computed radiography and screen-film in the outpatient environment. J Digit Imaging 15(Suppl 1):124–126CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Colin C, Vergnon P, Guibaud L, et al (1998) Comparative assessment of digital and analog radiography: diagnostic accuracy, cost analysis and quality of care. Eur J Radiol 26(3):226–234CrossRef Colin C, Vergnon P, Guibaud L, et al (1998) Comparative assessment of digital and analog radiography: diagnostic accuracy, cost analysis and quality of care. Eur J Radiol 26(3):226–234CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Maass M, Kosonen M, Kormano M (2001) Cost analysis of Turku University Central Hospital PACS in 1998. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 66(1):41–45CrossRef Maass M, Kosonen M, Kormano M (2001) Cost analysis of Turku University Central Hospital PACS in 1998. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 66(1):41–45CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mack S, Holstein J, Kleber K et al (2000) New aspects of image distribution and workflow in radiology. J Digit Imaging 13(2 Suppl 1):17–21CrossRef Mack S, Holstein J, Kleber K et al (2000) New aspects of image distribution and workflow in radiology. J Digit Imaging 13(2 Suppl 1):17–21CrossRef
7.
go back to reference May GA, Deer DD, Dackiewicz D (2000) Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow. J Digit Imaging 13(2 Suppl 1):76–78CrossRef May GA, Deer DD, Dackiewicz D (2000) Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow. J Digit Imaging 13(2 Suppl 1):76–78CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F et al (2007) A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging 20(2):140–148CrossRef Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F et al (2007) A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging 20(2):140–148CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ (2002) Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(6):1407–1410CrossRef Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ (2002) Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(6):1407–1410CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Mathie AG, Strickland NH (1997) Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. Radiology 203:207–209CrossRef Mathie AG, Strickland NH (1997) Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. Radiology 203:207–209CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Charvet-Protat S, Thoral F (1998) Economic and organizational evaluation of an imaging network (PACS). J Radiol 79(12):1453–1459 Charvet-Protat S, Thoral F (1998) Economic and organizational evaluation of an imaging network (PACS). J Radiol 79(12):1453–1459
12.
go back to reference Wade FA, Oliver CW (2004) Living with digital imaging. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:25–28CrossRef Wade FA, Oliver CW (2004) Living with digital imaging. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:25–28CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ et al (2001) Radiologists’ productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:861–864CrossRef Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ et al (2001) Radiologists’ productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:861–864CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Digital imaging data on CD-R: a time trap for orthopaedic surgeons in outpatient clinics
Authors
Stephanie Juenemann
Carol Hasler
Reinald Brunner
Publication date
01-02-2009
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Children's Orthopaedics / Issue 1/2009
Print ISSN: 1863-2521
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2548
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-008-0150-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

Journal of Children's Orthopaedics 1/2009 Go to the issue