Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated CT reformations reduce time and variability in trauma panscan exam completion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To test the hypothesis that an automated post-processing workflow reduces trauma panscan exam completion times and variability.

Methods

One-hundred-fifty consecutive trauma panscans performed between June 2018 and December 2019 were included, half before and half after implementation of an automated software-driven post-processing workflow. Acquisition and reconstruction timestamps were used to calculate total examination time (first acquisition to last reformation), setup time (between the non-contrast and contrast-enhanced acquisitions), and reconstruction time (for the contrast-enhanced reconstructions and reformations). The performing technologist was recorded and accounted for in analyses using linear mixed models to assess differences between the pre- and post-intervention groups.

Results

Exam, setup, and recon times were (mean ± standard deviation) 33.5 ± 4.6, 9.2 ± 2.4, and 23.6 ± 4.7 min before and 27.8 ± 1.5, 8.9 ± 1.4, and 18.9 ± 1.7 min after intervention. These reductions of 5.7 and 4.7 min in the mean exam and recon times were statistically significant (p < 0.001) while the setup time was not (p = 0.49). The reductions in standard deviation were statistically significant for exam and recon times (p < 0.0001) but not for setup time (p = 0.13). All automated panscans were completed within 36 min, versus 65% with the traditional workflow.

Conclusion

Automation of image reconstruction workflow significantly decreased mean exam and reconstruction times as well as variability between exams, thus facilitating a consistently rapid imaging assessment, and potentially reducing delays in critical management decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blow O, Magliore L, Claridge J et al (1999) The golden hour and the silver day: detection and correction of occult hypoperfusion within 24 hours improves outcome from major trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg:2–12

  2. Howard JT, Kotwal RS, Santos-lazada AR et al (2017) Reexamination of a battlefield trauma golden hour policy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 84:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Novelline RA, Rhea JT, Rao PM, Stuk JL (1999) Helical CT in emergency. Radiology 213:321–339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Soto JA, Anderson SW (2012) Multidetector CT of blunt abdominal trauma. Radiology 265:678–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hinzpeter R, Boehm T, Boll D et al (2017) Imaging algorithms and CT protocols in trauma patients: survey of Swiss emergency centers. Eur Radiol 27:1922–1928

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen D, Platon A, Shanmuganathan K et al (2009) Evaluation of a single-pass continuous whole-body 16-MDCT protocol for patients with polytrauma. Am J Roentgenol 192:3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wortman JR, Uyeda JW, Fulwadhva UP, Sodickson AD (2018) Dual-energy CT for abdominal and pelvic trauma. RadioGraphics:586–602

  8. Sodickson AD (2012) Strategies for reducing radiation exposure in multi-detector row CT. Radiol Clin N Am 50:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gunn ML, Kool DR, Lehnert BE (2015) Improving outcomes in the patient with polytrauma. Radiol Clin N Am 53:639–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jeavons C, Hacking C, Beenen LF, Gunn ML (2018) A review of split-bolus single-pass CT in the assessment of trauma patients. Emerg Radiol 25:367–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Korner M, Krotz M, Kanz K et al (2006) Development of an accelerated MSCT protocol (triage MSCT) for mass casualty incidents: comparison to MSCT for single-trauma patients. Emerg Radiol 12:203–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mueck F, Wirth K, Muggenthaler M et al (2016) Radiological mass casualty incident (MCI) workflow analysis: single-Centre data of a mid-scale exercise. Br J Radiol 89:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    HeiShun Yu, Camden P. Bay, Bryan Czajkowski & Aaron D Sodickson

Authors
  1. HeiShun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Camden P. Bay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bryan Czajkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aaron D Sodickson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to HeiShun Yu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, H., Bay, C.P., Czajkowski, B. et al. Automated CT reformations reduce time and variability in trauma panscan exam completion. Emerg Radiol 29, 461–469 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-022-02031-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-022-02031-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation