Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department

SUMMARYObjectivesTo compare the differences between conventional radiography and digital computerized radiography (CR) in patients presenting to the emergency department.MethodsThe study enrolled consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department who needed chest radiography. Quality score of the radiogram was assessed with visual analogue score (VAS-100 mm), measured in terms of millimeters and recorded at the end of study. Examination time, interpretation time, total time, and cost of radiograms were calculated.ResultsThere were significant differences between conventional radiography and digital CR groups in terms of location unit (Care Unit, Trauma, Resuscitation), hour of presentation, diagnosis group, examination time, interpretation time, and examination quality. Examination times for conventional radiography and digital CR were 45.2 and 34.2 minutes, respectively. Interpretation times for conventional radiography and digital CR were 25.2 and 39.7 minutes, respectively. Mean radiography quality scores for conventional radiography and digital CR were 69.1 mm and 82.0 mm. Digital CR had a 1.05 TL cheaper cost per radiogram compared to conventional radiography.ConclusionsSince interpretation of digital radiograms is performed via terminals inside the emergency department, the patient has to be left in order to interpret the digital radiograms, which prolongs interpretation times. We think that interpretation of digital radiograms with the help of a mobile device would eliminate these difficulties. Although the initial cost of setup of digital CR and PACS service is high at the emergency department, we think that Digital CR is more cost-effective than conventional radiography for emergency departments in the long-term.