OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the use of 64-MDCT and volume image reading on the radiologic workflow during a mass casualty incident simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this simulation, casualties were taken to our level I trauma center, and triage was done with whole-body 64-MDCT. The complete raw dataset of thin-section images was sent to a dedicated 3D workstation for further interpretation and simultaneous reformations. This new reading method is called volume image reading. Several time frames were documented to evaluate the workflow: examination time, time needed for image processing, and mean image transfer rates. The results were compared with those of a previous study using a 4-MDCT with axial images only and transfer of data to a PACS. RESULTS: The time for complete image processing (acquisition, reconstruction, and transfer) for 64-MDCT was 4.1 minutes (range, 3.9-4.3 minutes) compared with 9.0 minutes (range, 6.4-10.2 minutes) for 4-MDCT (p ≤ 0.001). The image processing capacity was 14.8 examinations/h for 64-MDCT compared with 6.7 examinations/h for 4-MDCT. The mean number of images was 953 for 64-MDCT compared with 202 for 4-MDCT (p ≤ 0.001). There were no significant differences between 64- and 4-MDCT for the time needed to prepare patients. CONCLUSION: The use of 64-MDCT with volume image reading led to evident advantages in the radiologic trauma workflow compared with 4-MDCT. Reading of the full image set including reformations can be initiated earlier with volume image reading.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the use of 64-MDCT and volume image reading on the radiologic workflow during a mass casualty incident simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this simulation, casualties were taken to our level I trauma center, and triage was done with whole-body 64-MDCT. The complete raw dataset of thin-section images was sent to a dedicated 3D workstation for further interpretation and simultaneous reformations. This new reading method is called volume image reading. Several time frames were documented to evaluate the workflow: examination time, time needed for image processing, and mean image transfer rates. The results were compared with those of a previous study using a 4-MDCT with axial images only and transfer of data to a PACS. RESULTS: The time for complete image processing (acquisition, reconstruction, and transfer) for 64-MDCT was 4.1 minutes (range, 3.9-4.3 minutes) compared with 9.0 minutes (range, 6.4-10.2 minutes) for 4-MDCT (p ≤ 0.001). The image processing capacity was 14.8 examinations/h for 64-MDCT compared with 6.7 examinations/h for 4-MDCT. The mean number of images was 953 for 64-MDCT compared with 202 for 4-MDCT (p ≤ 0.001). There were no significant differences between 64- and 4-MDCT for the time needed to prepare patients. CONCLUSION: The use of 64-MDCT with volume image reading led to evident advantages in the radiologic trauma workflow compared with 4-MDCT. Reading of the full image set including reformations can be initiated earlier with volume image reading.
Authors: Ferco H Berger; Markus Körner; Mark P Bernstein; Aaron D Sodickson; Ludo F Beenen; Patrick D McLaughlin; Digna R Kool; Ronald M Bilow Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Lucas L Geyer; Markus Körner; Andreas Harrieder; Fabian G Mueck; Zsuzsanna Deak; Stefan Wirth; Ulrich Linsenmaier Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: F Mück; K Wirth; M Muggenthaler; K G Kanz; U Kreimeier; D Maxien; U Linsenmeier; W Mutschler; S Wirth Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Lukas Lambert; Ondrej Foltan; Jan Briza; Alena Lambertova; Pavel Harsa; Rohan Banerjee; Jan Danes Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Ferdia Bolster; Ken Linnau; Steve Mitchell; Eric Roberge; Quynh Nguyen; Jeffrey Robinson; Bruce Lehnert; Joel Gross Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2016-09-13
Authors: Justin W Timbie; Jeanne S Ringel; D Steven Fox; Francesca Pillemer; Daniel A Waxman; Melinda Moore; Cynthia K Hansen; Ann R Knebel; Richard Ricciardi; Arthur L Kellermann Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Ingri L E Postma; L F M Beenen; T S Bijlsma; F H Berger; M J Heetveld; F W Bloemers; J C Goslings Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alexander Gäble; Julian Hebebrand; Marco Armbruster; Fabian Mück; Maria Berndt; Bernhard Kumle; Ulrich Fink; Stefan Wirth Journal: Radiologe Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 0.635