Impact of Image Post-Processing on PACS Workstation: Dynamic Range Suppression(DRS) of Chest Radiographs.
10.3348/jkrs.1999.40.1.181
- Author:
Hwan Jun JAE
1
;
Joo Hee CHA
;
Jung Suk SIM
;
Jong Hyo KIM
;
Dong Hyuk LEE
;
Jung Gi IM
;
Man Chung HAN
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and the Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Radiography, digital;
Radiography, technology;
Computers, diagnostic aid;
Images, processing
- MeSH:
Adult;
Diaphragm;
Humans;
Image Enhancement;
Radiographic Image Enhancement;
Radiography;
Radiography, Thoracic*;
Ribs;
Thoracic Vertebrae;
Thorax*;
Trachea;
Volunteers
- From:Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
1999;40(1):181-186
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of post-processing on a PACS workstation before and after use of thedynamic range suppression method for the normal chest radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty normal chestradiographs of healthy adult volunteers aged 20 to 33 (average 27; M:F = 29:11) were acquired by FCR using adigital interface and then transferred to an in-house-developed PACS workstation. The image size of computed chestradiographs was 7.5MB with 1760 x 2140 matrix. An image enhancement processing named DRS, developed by theauthors, was applied to the acquired images and generated a total of 40 chest radiographs. These were presented tothree groups of observers, each consisting of one radiologist and one technician on the PACS workstation, whichhad two monitors of 1712 x 2100 resolution. So that external light would not affect the visibility of imagesduring observation, these were displayed in a light-controlled room. The J.J.Vucich method, suitably modified, wasused to evaluate the anatomical structures and physical parameters of processed and unprocessed radiographs. Usinga percentage scale, the observers evaluated both anatomical sections (seven anatomical items : cortical margins ofribs, left diaphragms, thoracic vertebrae, trachea, pulmonary vasculature, trabeculae of ribs and clavicle,diaphragm outline) and physical sections (four items : contrast, graininess, density, detail). The results for thethree groups, both before and after DRS processing, were then compared. RESULTS: There was a statisticallysignificant difference between the three groups: in the anatomical section, 78.64 before DRS and 82.55 after ; andin the physical section, 75.48 and 79.78 (p<0.05). The average values of all items were 77.06 before DRS and 81.17after (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Post-processing of computed chest radiographs on the PACS workstation improves boththe visibility of anatomical features and general image quality. Thus, in a PACS environment, it can be a usefultool for enhancing the diagnostic efficacy of radiography.
