Abstract
We present an effective approach to manage, review, and distribute Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) images with multiple monitors using Windows98 (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA) that can be implemented in an office-based setting. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and angiographic DICOM images were collected, compressed, and stored using Medweb (Medweb, Inc, San Francisco, CA) software. The Medweb server used the Linux/UNIX operating system on a Pentium 333-MHz processor with 128 MB of RAM. Short-term storage capacity was about 2 weeks with routine usage of an 11-GB hard drive. Images were presented for reading on a dual-monitor Windows98 Pentium display station with 160 MB of RAM using a Medweb/Netscape (Netscape Communications Corp, Mountain View, CA) viewer. There was no significant discrepancy in diagnosis between electronic and conventional film images. Mean reading time for 32 cases was 118 seconds. The Medweb JAVA plug-in viewer loaded the first image within 30 seconds of selecting the case for review. Full uncompressed 16-bit images allowed different window setting to better assess for pathology. Multiple monitors allowed viewing various hanging protocols. Cine viewing was also possible. Key diagnostic images were electronically transmitted to referring physicians. On-call radiologists were able to access images through the Internet. By combining Medweb, DICOM, and web-browser software using desktop personal computers (PCs), an easily accessible picture archiving and communications system (PACS) is available to radiologists and referring physicians. Multiple monitors are easily configured and managed using Windows98. This system can sustain changes and can be extended to provide variable functions using inexpensive PCs.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (656.3 KB).
Footnotes
Supported in part by Medweb, Inc, San Francisco, CA.
References
- 1.Kato H, Kubota G, Kojima K, et al. Preliminary time-flow study: Comparison of interpretation times between PACS work-stations and films. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1995;19:261–265. doi: 10.1016/0895-6111(95)00010-N. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Perry JR, et al. Interpretation of CT studies: Single-screen workstation versus film alternator. Radiology. 1993;187:565–569. doi: 10.1148/radiology.187.2.8475309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Pisano ED, et al. Computed tomography interpretations with a low-cost workstation: a timing study. J Digit Imaging. 1994;7:133–139. doi: 10.1007/BF03168506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Denelsbeck KM, et al. How many screens does a CT workstation need? J Digit Imaging. 1994;7:69–76. doi: 10.1007/BF03168425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Microsoft: Getting Started Microsoft Windows98 Seattle, WA, IPC Communication Services, 1998
- 6.Ogle PL. Take a PACS workstation out for a test-drive. Diagn Imaging. 1996;11:3–7. [Google Scholar]