HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gralla, J. Articles by Hoppe, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gralla, J. Articles by Hoppe, H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Evaluation of a 16-MDCT Scanner in an Emergency Department: Initial Clinical Experience and Workflow Analysis

¹ Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 4, Bern, Switzerland.
² Department of Neuroradiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE. MDCT is especially suited for emergency purposes because it allows rapid high-resolution scans of large areas, fast high-quality reformatting in every orientation, and 3D illustration of the data set. In a prospective study, we evaluated the reliability and workflow of a dedicated emergency department 16-MDCT scanner in the management of patients presenting to the emergency department.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. The use of a 16-MDCT scanner for 503 patients in the emergency department of a university clinic was evaluated. For reasons of workflow analysis, seven precise time intervals were recorded during the emergency examinations. A new setting for repositioning multiple-trauma patients after imaging of the head and neck from the head-first position to the feet-first position was introduced.

RESULTS. Six (1.2%) of the 503 patients were excluded because of technical malfunction or patient noncompliance. Image quality in the remaining 497 cases, including CT angiography and CT of multiple-trauma patients, was outstanding. Positioning of the patients took from 3 to 13 min depending on the body region examined, representing 33-67% of the mean room time, which ranged from 8 to 21 min. In multiple-trauma patients, the initial positioning took a mean of 6 min and repositioning took 8 min, representing 19% and 26% of total room time, respectively.

CONCLUSION. The use of a dedicated 16-MDCT scanner in the emergency department resulted in short examination times even for examinations of multiple body regions under emergency conditions. The introduced setting—repositioning of multiple-trauma patients—allowed high image quality to be maintained. The trade-off in multiple-trauma patients was prolonged room time because of patient repositioning.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. W. L. Boland Visibility of Radiologists: Helping to Secure Your Future Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2009; 192(5): 1373 - 1374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Nguyen, A. Platon, K. Shanmuganathan, S. E. Mirvis, C. D. Becker, and P.-A. Poletti Evaluation of a Single-Pass Continuous Whole-Body 16-MDCT Protocol for Patients with Polytrauma Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 3 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Salim, B. Sangthong, M. Martin, C. Brown, D. Plurad, and D. Demetriades Whole Body Imaging in Blunt Multisystem Trauma Patients Without Obvious Signs of Injury: Results of a Prospective Study Arch Surg, May 1, 2006; 141(5): 468 - 475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]