DOI:10.2214/AJR.06.5042.1
AJR 2006; 186:E22
© American Roentgen Ray Society
Reply
Gerd Schueller
Medical University of Vienna
Vienna, Austria
First, my colleagues and I thank Dr. Hall for his interest in our work
[1]. By the fact that we have
obtained a series of communications regarding this article, we believe that we
might have hit a delicate topic of quality assurance in radiology. Most
likely, radiologists have to thoroughly survey this issue because the
discussion is maintained by product-driven companies on the one hand and by
increasing expenditures in medicine and pressure from managed care on the
other.
Second, we must state that Dr. Hall is right: Wet laser printers are no
longer state-of-the-art equipment for imaging techniques, including CT, MRI,
and sonography. Recently, dry laser printers have become the industry standard
for rendering hard copies of digitally generated images in radiology in the
United States and even in Europe. However, at the time our study was being
performed, this trend could not be anticipated and dry laser printers could
not be referred to as the standard technique.
Dr. Hall summarizes that wet and dry laser printers have similar
attributes, especially in terms of image resolution. This is why we think that
data obtained by comparing the quality of a paper printer versus a dry laser
printer for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) would be comparable to our
results. Nevertheless, we are aware of the fact that further studies are
necessary to verify this hypothesis.
References
- Schueller G, Kaindl E, Matzek WK, Semturs F, Schueller-Weidekamm C,
Helbich TH. Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for
full-field digital mammograms. AJR 2006;186
: 38-43[Abstract/Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
