Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms

Can paper replace laser film to communicate the results of wrist radiographs in trauma cases? A reproducibility study of the reading of wrist trauma case radiographs on a PACS workstation, laser film, and paper

The main goal of this study was to determine the reproducibility of the reading of wrist trauma case radiographs using three different media: laser film, a picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstation, and paper with an optimized layout. The study was conducted retrospectively in 200 consecutive patients consulting at the emergency department for wrist trauma and who underwent wrist X-ray investigation using a computed radiography system. There were 82 men and 118 women. The mean age was 48.3 years (16-95 years). Our institutional review board does not require patient approval or informed consent for retrospective review of case records. The readings were made by two independent readers who analyzed the 200 patient radiographs consecutively in one session for each type of media: paper, laser film, and on a PACS dual-screen workstation. The inter-reader agreements were substantial or almost perfect, with kappa values of 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for the PACS, 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for film, and 0.80 (0.72-0.87) for paper. The inter-technique agreement was almost perfect in all cases. There is a high interobserver agreement between PACS, laser film, and paper readings for wrist trauma cases. With a layout of one radiograph on each sheet, paper could replace laser films to communicate the results of wrist radiographs in trauma cases for outpatients.

Comparison of paper print and soft copy reading in plain paediatric radiographs

With the introduction of a Picture Archiving and Communication System, Computed (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR), reading digital images takes place from a computer screen. Laser paper print rather than laser film would be a significantly more cost-effective option for hard copy production, but would need to demonstrate acceptable diagnostic quality compared to the reference standard of screen reading. A comparative study of 51 digital paediatric CR radiographs presented in laser paper print and soft copy format to determine the diagnostic value of the paper print when compared to the reference standard of screen reading. Chest radiography had a poor sensitivity of 66.1% while musculoskeletal and abdominal radiography had acceptable sensitivities of 90% and 99%, respectively. Specificity was excellent for the different regions (98.6-99.5%). The paper print format should not be used for diagnostic purposes in paediatric chest radiography, but may still be used for demonstration when accompanied by the radiology rapport obtained from soft copy reading. Further studies would be needed to investigate the use of paper prints in abdominal and musculoskeletal radiography owing to the low number of abdominal radiographs and lack of musculoskeletal case variety in our study.

Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: Is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?

OBJECTIVE

Dry laser printers have replaced wet laser printers to produce hard copies of high-resolution digital images, primarily because of environmental concerns. However, no scientific research data have been published that compare the image quality of dry and wet laser printers in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This study questions the image quality of these printers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Objective image quality parameters of both printers were evaluated using a standardized printer test image, i.e., optical density and detectability of specific image elements (lines, curves, and shapes). Furthermore, mammograms of 129 patients with different breast tissue composition patterns were imaged with both printers. A total of 1806 subjective image quality parameters (brightness, contrast, and detail detection of anatomic structures), the detectability of breast lesions, as well as diagnostic performance according to the BI-RADS classification were evaluated. In addition, the presence of film artifacts was investigated.

RESULTS

Optical density values were equal for the dry and the wet laser printer. Detection of specific image elements on the printer test image was not different. Ratings of subjective image quality parameters were equal, as were the detectability of breast lesions and the diagnostic performance. Dry laser printer images showed more artifacts (164 versus 27). However, these artifacts did not influence image quality.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence of objective and subjective parameters, a dry laser printer equals the image quality of a wet laser printer in FFDM. Therefore, not only for reasons of environmental preference, the replacement of wet laser printers by dry laser printers in FFDM is justified.