Documentation of ERCP images - Thermal prints, helios and laser hard copies

R. K. Hsu, V. Ng, R. Protell, M. Stein, Joseph Leung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Free Standing endoscopy units may be equipped with fluoroscopic equipment separate from the main radiology department. Very often a digital C-arm fluoroscopy unit is used. This unit is capable of capturing images and storing them in the hard drive of the computer for subsequent review. Images can be selectively transfered to 3.5 in. computer diskettes for permanent storage or can be downloaded to different systems for documentation. We have looked at three image document systems: 1. Thermal printing system, 2. Heliospolaroid laser imaging system -laminated carbon copies and 3. Laser camera -Kodak 2180- silver impregnated copies for the documentation of ERCP procedures. We assessed the cost of the equipment and film, the quality of film for data interpretation and the time taken to print per film. Methods: Two images from twenty cases of ERCP procedures were selected and copied onto the three imaging systems. The size of the copies for Thermal, Helios and Laser were 4×4.5, 8×10, 14×17 inches, respectively. The images were reviewed independently by 8 biliary endoscopists and 1 interventional radiologist for the image quality and the ease of reading. A quality score is assigned: 1- unsatisfactory, 2- poor, 3- satisfactory, 4- good, 5- excellent. The ease of reading score: 1-difficult, 2-reasonable, 3-easy. Results: A total of 176 scores in each group were taken and the average score was calculated. Thermal Helios Laser quality score 2.8 3.6 3.8 ease of reading 1.7 2.2 2.3 p < 0.05*p > 0.05 1 printing (sec)/film 16 90 120 cost per film $ 0.20 $ 1.00 $1.00 cost per unit $ 5,000 $ 49,000 $95,000*compared to Helios & Laser; 1 compared to Helios Thermal prints could not be projected onto a screen but can be placed into the medical chart for documentation. It is the least expensive modality. Conclusions: 1. Image quality of the Helios system and the Laser camera are more preferable to Thermal prints for viewing. 2. The quality of laser prints is slightly better than Helios, but the cost of set up is double. 3. There is also a potential concern for disposal of silver waste products with the Laser Camera.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)296
Number of pages1
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume43
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1996

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Documentation
Lasers
Hot Temperature
Costs and Cost Analysis
Reading
Printing
Silver
Waste Products
Equipment and Supplies
Fluoroscopy
Radiology
Endoscopy
Carbon

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Documentation of ERCP images - Thermal prints, helios and laser hard copies. / Hsu, R. K.; Ng, V.; Protell, R.; Stein, M.; Leung, Joseph.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1996, p. 296.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hsu, R. K. ; Ng, V. ; Protell, R. ; Stein, M. ; Leung, Joseph. / Documentation of ERCP images - Thermal prints, helios and laser hard copies. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1996 ; Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 296.
@article{993c6861369d4cfaa36df0024ab9d184,
title = "Documentation of ERCP images - Thermal prints, helios and laser hard copies",
abstract = "Free Standing endoscopy units may be equipped with fluoroscopic equipment separate from the main radiology department. Very often a digital C-arm fluoroscopy unit is used. This unit is capable of capturing images and storing them in the hard drive of the computer for subsequent review. Images can be selectively transfered to 3.5 in. computer diskettes for permanent storage or can be downloaded to different systems for documentation. We have looked at three image document systems: 1. Thermal printing system, 2. Heliospolaroid laser imaging system -laminated carbon copies and 3. Laser camera -Kodak 2180- silver impregnated copies for the documentation of ERCP procedures. We assessed the cost of the equipment and film, the quality of film for data interpretation and the time taken to print per film. Methods: Two images from twenty cases of ERCP procedures were selected and copied onto the three imaging systems. The size of the copies for Thermal, Helios and Laser were 4×4.5, 8×10, 14×17 inches, respectively. The images were reviewed independently by 8 biliary endoscopists and 1 interventional radiologist for the image quality and the ease of reading. A quality score is assigned: 1- unsatisfactory, 2- poor, 3- satisfactory, 4- good, 5- excellent. The ease of reading score: 1-difficult, 2-reasonable, 3-easy. Results: A total of 176 scores in each group were taken and the average score was calculated. Thermal Helios Laser quality score 2.8 3.6 3.8 ease of reading 1.7 2.2 2.3 p < 0.05*p > 0.05 1 printing (sec)/film 16 90 120 cost per film $ 0.20 $ 1.00 $1.00 cost per unit $ 5,000 $ 49,000 $95,000*compared to Helios & Laser; 1 compared to Helios Thermal prints could not be projected onto a screen but can be placed into the medical chart for documentation. It is the least expensive modality. Conclusions: 1. Image quality of the Helios system and the Laser camera are more preferable to Thermal prints for viewing. 2. The quality of laser prints is slightly better than Helios, but the cost of set up is double. 3. There is also a potential concern for disposal of silver waste products with the Laser Camera.",
author = "Hsu, {R. K.} and V. Ng and R. Protell and M. Stein and Joseph Leung",
year = "1996",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "296",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Documentation of ERCP images - Thermal prints, helios and laser hard copies

AU - Hsu, R. K.

AU - Ng, V.

AU - Protell, R.

AU - Stein, M.

AU - Leung, Joseph

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - Free Standing endoscopy units may be equipped with fluoroscopic equipment separate from the main radiology department. Very often a digital C-arm fluoroscopy unit is used. This unit is capable of capturing images and storing them in the hard drive of the computer for subsequent review. Images can be selectively transfered to 3.5 in. computer diskettes for permanent storage or can be downloaded to different systems for documentation. We have looked at three image document systems: 1. Thermal printing system, 2. Heliospolaroid laser imaging system -laminated carbon copies and 3. Laser camera -Kodak 2180- silver impregnated copies for the documentation of ERCP procedures. We assessed the cost of the equipment and film, the quality of film for data interpretation and the time taken to print per film. Methods: Two images from twenty cases of ERCP procedures were selected and copied onto the three imaging systems. The size of the copies for Thermal, Helios and Laser were 4×4.5, 8×10, 14×17 inches, respectively. The images were reviewed independently by 8 biliary endoscopists and 1 interventional radiologist for the image quality and the ease of reading. A quality score is assigned: 1- unsatisfactory, 2- poor, 3- satisfactory, 4- good, 5- excellent. The ease of reading score: 1-difficult, 2-reasonable, 3-easy. Results: A total of 176 scores in each group were taken and the average score was calculated. Thermal Helios Laser quality score 2.8 3.6 3.8 ease of reading 1.7 2.2 2.3 p < 0.05*p > 0.05 1 printing (sec)/film 16 90 120 cost per film $ 0.20 $ 1.00 $1.00 cost per unit $ 5,000 $ 49,000 $95,000*compared to Helios & Laser; 1 compared to Helios Thermal prints could not be projected onto a screen but can be placed into the medical chart for documentation. It is the least expensive modality. Conclusions: 1. Image quality of the Helios system and the Laser camera are more preferable to Thermal prints for viewing. 2. The quality of laser prints is slightly better than Helios, but the cost of set up is double. 3. There is also a potential concern for disposal of silver waste products with the Laser Camera.

AB - Free Standing endoscopy units may be equipped with fluoroscopic equipment separate from the main radiology department. Very often a digital C-arm fluoroscopy unit is used. This unit is capable of capturing images and storing them in the hard drive of the computer for subsequent review. Images can be selectively transfered to 3.5 in. computer diskettes for permanent storage or can be downloaded to different systems for documentation. We have looked at three image document systems: 1. Thermal printing system, 2. Heliospolaroid laser imaging system -laminated carbon copies and 3. Laser camera -Kodak 2180- silver impregnated copies for the documentation of ERCP procedures. We assessed the cost of the equipment and film, the quality of film for data interpretation and the time taken to print per film. Methods: Two images from twenty cases of ERCP procedures were selected and copied onto the three imaging systems. The size of the copies for Thermal, Helios and Laser were 4×4.5, 8×10, 14×17 inches, respectively. The images were reviewed independently by 8 biliary endoscopists and 1 interventional radiologist for the image quality and the ease of reading. A quality score is assigned: 1- unsatisfactory, 2- poor, 3- satisfactory, 4- good, 5- excellent. The ease of reading score: 1-difficult, 2-reasonable, 3-easy. Results: A total of 176 scores in each group were taken and the average score was calculated. Thermal Helios Laser quality score 2.8 3.6 3.8 ease of reading 1.7 2.2 2.3 p < 0.05*p > 0.05 1 printing (sec)/film 16 90 120 cost per film $ 0.20 $ 1.00 $1.00 cost per unit $ 5,000 $ 49,000 $95,000*compared to Helios & Laser; 1 compared to Helios Thermal prints could not be projected onto a screen but can be placed into the medical chart for documentation. It is the least expensive modality. Conclusions: 1. Image quality of the Helios system and the Laser camera are more preferable to Thermal prints for viewing. 2. The quality of laser prints is slightly better than Helios, but the cost of set up is double. 3. There is also a potential concern for disposal of silver waste products with the Laser Camera.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748964124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748964124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33748964124

VL - 43

SP - 296

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -