Comparison between Digital Radiography and Computed Radiography

Computed radiography (CR) it’s a method used in creating a digital image using phosphor Imaging. CR is a cassette-based just like the analog film, and it’s mostly considered to bridge the current popular fully digitalized methods and the standard radiography (Seeram, 2015). On the other hand, digital radiography (DR) is the latest version in the field of radiography. The system uses digital x-ray detector to acquire images automatically and send them to a programmed computer system for viewing (Seeram, 2015).  In the current world of radiology, efficiency, and effectiveness of the machines in our hospital matters to the clients. People prefer devices which takes shorter time and gives out a dependable outcome. I prefer a digital radiography system due to its efficiency and effectiveness in different ways as discussed below.

Computed Radiography (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR) Impact On Patient Care

Technology has evolved, and newly portable DR machines introduced which enhance better services to the customers. The physician field has appreciated the advancement since they are now able to serve the patients when still they are on their beds without moving them. Such a move helps to care for the patients especially the ICU patients hence assisting in improving their conditions. The DR systems also allow the clinicians the ability to view patient images within a very few seconds. The physicians can instantly assess the situation of the patient and immediately begin the appropriate treatment (Quaia et al. 20116).  With such an advancement, it’s clear that institutions which mind about their patients should install the DR systems especially the portable once to serve their clients effectively and efficiently.

Image Accuracy in (DR) and (CR) Systems.

Another advantage of the DR systems is the dose reduction. The DR systems have enabled the health systems to improve the quality of their images dramatically while reducing the patient dosage by half compared to the CR systems. A study published back in 2011 in clinical radiology by Dutch researchers, stated that, chest radiography carried out beside the beds of the patients with 50% less radiation than what CR used, could produce a higher quality image (Dutra et al. 2016).    To ascertain their research, they carried out a test for 114 patients using, DR with 50% reduction in dose, DR without the dose reduction, and with CR systems. The researchers recorded all the images obtained using those machines and found out that, images were taken using the DR with a reduced dose and that taken using the DR without the dose reduction were far better than those made using the CR systems. The DR and DR with limited dose images were also more accurate than the pictures taken using the CR system.

Efficiency Regarding Time and Cost for (DR) and (CR) Machines

The DR systems are more advantageous especially with patient throughput and technologist’s workflow especially for mobile imaging systems for outpatients as compared to the CR systems. The DR machines rapidly display the images acquired few seconds after the exposure. On the other hand, the CR systems can take 5 to 7 minutes or more to show the picture after the exposure. Much of this time is spent when waiting for the image processing and readout and also when handling the cassettes. Therefore, regarding time-saving, DR systems are far battered that CR systems (Dutta et al. 2017)

The recent introduction of wired and the latest wireless DR systems are trending. The CR systems may soon be eliminated by the DR systems completely although there is a long way to go before that full implementation. Indeed, the shortcoming in the takeover of the DR systems is in the aspect of the enormous capital required in the investment of the machines. Users want to enjoy the efficient and effective services provided by the DR systems without wanting to meet the cost attached to it. Therefore, DR systems remain to be the best choice for any client who knows what quality services mean in life.

Radiation Exposure and Other Harmful Elements in both (DR) and (CR) Systems

The CR system uses screens which have photo-stimulated luminescence in capturing the image, the CR system cassette goes into a reader hence converting the data digitally into an image. The DR systems in the other hand use active matrix flat panels which consist of a layer detection deposited on the dynamic matrix array with a thin photodiodes film and a transistor. With DR the image is digitally converted into data hence available for review within a matter of seconds (White and Pharoah, 2014). Therefore CR systems are more harmful to patients.

Conclusion

In conclusion, DR and CR systems are now in the public domain. Generally, the CR systems form the most significant percentage of the methods available in our institutions currently. However, the DR systems are increasing in most of the areas that demand, effectiveness, high throughput, and efficiency. While the historical comparison between the two systems is essential in making a decision, it is less critical for DR systems since its advancement in technology has overshadowed the CR systems. The knowledge concerning DR systems concerning its characteristics, advantages, operational details, and disadvantages opens the mind of the clients and any other person I included and helps in making an informed decision of choosing DR systems over the CR systems. It’s a matter of fact that, the initial capital outlay for DR systems is significant, but the gains in timing and productivity of patient care, more so those who are in critical conditions, goes beyond towards offsetting the cost. Therefore, DR systems remain the best choice.

References

Dutra, K. L., Haas, L, Flores-Mir, C., Santos, J. N., Mezzomo, L. A. ... & Canto, G. D. L.         (2016). Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and conventional   radiography on apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of     Endodontics, 42(3), 356-364.

Dutta, K., Desai, P. D., Das, U. K., & Sarkar, S. (2017). Comparative evaluation of three    methods to measure working length-Manual tactile sensation, digital radiograph, and      multidetector computed tomography: An in vitro study. Journal of conservative dentistry:        JCD, 20(2), 76.

Quaia, E., Baratella, E., Poillucci, G., Gennari, A. G., & Cova, M. A. (2016). Diagnostic impact      of digital tomosynthesis in oncologic patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on chest    radiography. European radiology, 26(8), 2837-2844.

Seeram, E. (2015). Computed Tomography-E-Book: Physical Principles, Clinical Applications,  and Quality Control. Elsevier Health Sciences.

White, S. C., & Pharoah, M. J. (2014). Oral radiology-E-Book: Principles and interpretation. Elsevier Health Sciences.