Multi-detector computed tomography and 3-dimensional imaging in a multi-vendor picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) environment.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To show the impact of the introduction of multi-detector computed tomography (CT) on radiologic workflow and to demonstrate how this reflects on picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS Production measurements were obtained from different CT scanners (first two single-slice CT scanners; from December 2001 single and 4-slice CT; from April 2002 single and 16-slice CT) in number of patients from the radiologic information system. Implications on our PACS were recorded in terms of images and studies stored. Furthermore, our PACS design was made so that optimal use of 3-dimensional imaging within the radiologic workflow was possible. Finally, the number of non-diagnosed studies were recorded every day since the start of the transition to a filmless radiology department. RESULTS This PACS design achieved a high level of integration between simple viewing and advanced 3-dimensional imaging and is optimized for handling large amounts of data. Overall increase of patients scanned with CT from January 2002-December 2003 was 54%. The number of series increased by 286% from December 2001-April 2003 and by 130% from April 2002-December 2003. From January 2002-February 2003, the number of images per patient increased from 175 to 450 (157%). Non-diagnosed studies decreased from about 100-120 before to practically zero after PACS implementation. CONCLUSION PACS significantly increases productivity because of availability of the images and elimination of certain manual tasks. These results show that although the amount of examinations increases significantly with the introduction of MDCT, simultaneous introduction of PACS and filmless operation allows radiologists to handle the growth in workload.

[1]  H. Lenzen,et al.  PACS: the silent revolution , 1999, European Radiology.

[2]  N H Strickland,et al.  Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. , 1997, Radiology.

[3]  M J Buxton,et al.  Radiology report times: impact of picture archiving and communication systems. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  D Gur,et al.  Primary CT diagnosis of abdominal masses in a PACS environment. , 1991, Radiology.

[5]  G C Weatherburn,et al.  Comparison of film, hard copy computed radiography (CR) and soft copy picture archiving and communication (PACS) systems using a contrast detail test object. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[6]  T Ishigaki,et al.  Clinical evaluation of newly developed CRT viewing station: CT reading and observer's performance. , 1995, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[7]  S. Saini,et al.  Effect of multislice CT technology on scanner productivity. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  G. Rubin,et al.  Data explosion: the challenge of multidetector-row CT. , 2000, European journal of radiology.

[9]  The clinical usefulness of routine stacked multiplanar reconstruction in helical abdominal computed tomography. , 1997, Investigative radiology.

[10]  Borut Marincek,et al.  Multidetector-row helical CT: analysis of time management and workflow , 2002, European Radiology.

[11]  D Gur,et al.  Sequential viewing of abdominal CT images at varying rates. , 1994, Radiology.

[12]  Geoffrey D Rubin,et al.  3-D imaging with MDCT. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[13]  R. Steckel,et al.  The current applications of PACS to radiology practice. , 1994, Radiology.

[14]  M. Prokop,et al.  Increasing spiral CT benefits with postprocessing applications. , 1998, European journal of radiology.

[15]  P Croisille,et al.  [Characterization of arterial stenosis using 3D imaging. Comparison of 3 imaging techniques (MRI, spiral CT and 3D DSA) and 4 display methods (MIP, SR, MPVR, VA) by using physical phantoms)]. , 1999, Journal de radiologie.

[16]  Y Horikawa,et al.  Influence of CRT workstation on observer's performance. , 1992, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[17]  T. Ishigaki,et al.  Display method can affect interobserver agreement: comparison of 'zoom-and-pan' and 'browse-and-paste' for primary CT interpretation. , 2001, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[18]  W D Foley,et al.  Display of CT studies on a two-screen electronic workstation versus a film panel alternator: sensitivity and efficiency among radiologists. , 1990, Radiology.

[19]  J R Perry,et al.  Interpretation of CT studies: single-screen workstation versus film alternator. , 1993, Radiology.

[20]  K. D. Foord PACS workstation respecification: display, data flow, system integration, and environmental issues, derived from analysis of the Conquest Hospital pre-DICOM PACS experience , 1999, European Radiology.

[21]  T Endo,et al.  Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography. , 1996, Radiology.

[22]  Mathias Prokop,et al.  General principles of MDCT. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[23]  Eliot L Siegel,et al.  Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  M. Reiser,et al.  Multiplanar reformat display technique in abdominal multidetector row CT imaging. , 2003, Clinical imaging.

[25]  David Hirschorn,et al.  Filmless in New Jersey: the New Jersey Medical School PACS Project. , 2002, Journal of digital imaging.

[26]  Kevin McEnery,et al.  Impact of multislice CT on PACS resources. , 2002, Journal of digital imaging.

[27]  Klaus Kubin,et al.  Three-dimensional volume rendering of multidetector-row CT data: applicable for emergency radiology. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[28]  E L Siegel,et al.  Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.