Font Size: a A A

Comparative Study Of Portal Workstation And EBW Workstation In The Image Post-processing In Philips ICT

Posted on:2014-02-01Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:F TengFull Text:PDF
GTID:2248330395998009Subject:Clinical Medicine
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Objective: Different workstations as image reconstruction andquantitative analysis platform, may affect the final diagnosis. The study on thePhilips Portal workstation and Extended Brilliance Workspace (EBW)workstation in the difference image post-processing. Discuss whichworkstations to faster and higher quality image effect in clinical service.M Method: Collect the cases of using iCT (256layer spiral CT) to makeexamination during September2011to July2012in our hospital, which havecommon fault scanning chest, abdomen, head all30cases and enhance thescanning coronary artery CTA, head perfusion scan, CTU scanning all30cases.The same image data are transmitted into Portal workstation and EBWworkstation is divided into group A and B groups after treatment make thecomparison of two aspects of subjective and objective. Subjective evaluation isimage quality assessment, Select three doctors which long engaged in workradiological diagnosis. Independently rating the image of a shaft, crown andVR images. Objective evaluation data obtained from the time (Q), theprocessing time (C), print time (D) three aspects timing.Results:1. Subjective evaluation (Image quality control):⑴A group of shaft A image quality score average10.58points, Group B shaft bit image quality scoreaverage10.81points. There was no significant difference between both groups(P=0.16).⑵A group of crown A image quality score average10.55points,Group B crown a image quality score average10.70points, There was nosignificant difference between both groups(P=0.89).⑶A group of VR imagequality score average8.81points, Group B VR image quality score average10.67points, There was a significant difference between both groups(P=0.00).2. Objective evaluation (The image obtained time, processing time,printing time control):⑴Common CT scan, the head, chest and abdomenimage read time, processing time and print time of A, B two groups werecompared, P value is greater than0.05, there was all no statistical significance.⑵Enhanced CT scan, Coronary artery CTA: A group of image reading timeaverage for84.62seconds, B group of image reading time average for75.44seconds, there was a significant difference between both groups(P<0.05); Agroup of image processing time mean for654.62seconds, B group of imageprocessing time mean for574.62seconds, there was a significant differencebetween both groups(P<0.05); A group of print time average for5.42seconds,B group of print time average for5.41seconds, There was no significantdifference between both groups (P=0.31). Head perfusion scan: A group ofimage reading time average for66.17seconds, B group of image reading timeaverage for59.09seconds, there was a significant difference between bothgroups(P<0.05); A group of image processing time mean for581.81seconds, B group of image processing time mean for540.94seconds, there was asignificant difference between both groups(P<0.05); A group of print timeaverage for23.54seconds, B group of print time average for23.44seconds,There was no significant difference between both groups (P=0.18). CTUscanning: A group of image reading time average for43.47seconds, B group ofimage reading time average for42.97seconds, there was a significantdifference between both groups(P<0.05); A group of image processing timemean for266.56seconds, B group of image processing time mean for254.69seconds, there was a significant difference between both groups(P<0.05); Agroup of print time average for20.51seconds, B group of print time averagefor20.47seconds, There was no significant difference between both groups (P=0.12).Conclusion:The image post-processing of common CT scan, there wasno difference in the two kinds of workstation, but in the enhanced CT scan,whether from the image quality (VR) or in the post-processing of overall time,EBW workstation is obviously superior to the Portal workstation. In conclusion,taking the common fault scan, Portal can be used for post-processingworkstation, use multiple machines simultaneously after treatment anddiagnosis,save time and can better finish the work. And in to enhance theimage inspection should be applied EBW workstation, Clear image and fasterwork time for clinical diagnosis and clinical work to provide convenientservices, ensure timely diagnosis and emergency treatment in severe cases.
Keywords/Search Tags:Philips iCT, portal workstation, EBW workstation
PDF Full Text Request
Related items