Emergency Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 323–327 | Cite as

The iPad as a mobile device for CT display and interpretation: diagnostic accuracy for identification of pulmonary embolism

  • Pamela T. Johnson
  • Stefan L. Zimmerman
  • David Heath
  • John Eng
  • Karen M. Horton
  • William W. Scott
  • Elliot K. Fishman
Original Article

Abstract

Recent software developments enable interactive, real-time axial, 2D and 3D CT display on an iPad by cloud computing from a server for remote rendering. The purpose of this study was to compare radiologists’ interpretative performance on the iPad to interpretation on the conventional picture archive and communication system (PACS). Fifty de-identified contrast-enhanced CT exams performed for suspected pulmonary embolism were compiled as an educational tool to prepare our residents for night call. Two junior radiology attendings blindly interpreted the cases twice, one reader used the PACS first, and the other interpreted on the iPad first. After an interval of at least 2 weeks, the cases were reinterpreted in different order using the other display technique. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for identification of pulmonary embolism were compared for each interpretation method. Pulmonary embolism was present in 25 patients, ranging from main pulmonary artery to subsegmental thrombi. Both readers interpreted 98 % of cases correctly regardless of display platform. There was no significant difference in sensitivity (98 vs 100 %, p = 1.0), specificity (98 vs 96 %, p = 1.0), or accuracy (98 vs 98 %, p = 1.0) for interpretation with the iPad vs the PACS, respectively. CT interpretation on an iPad enabled accurate identification of pulmonary embolism, equivalent to display on the PACS. This mobile device has the potential to expand radiologists’ availability for consultation and expedite emergency patient management.

Keywords

iPad Computed tomography Picture archive and communication system Pulmonary embolism 

References

  1. 1.
    Shrestha RB (2011) Imaging on the cloud. Applied Radiol 40(5):8–12Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mc Laughlin P, Neill SO, Fanning N, Mc Garrigle AM, Connor OJ, Wyse G, Maher MM (2011) Emergency CT brain: preliminary interpretation with a tablet device: image quality and diagnostic performance of the Apple iPad. Emerg Radiol. doi:10.1007/s10140-011-1011-2
  3. 3.
    Eguchi T, Takasuna K, Kitazawa A, Fukuzawa Y, Sakaue Y, Yoshida K, Matsubara M (2012) Three-dimensional imaging navigation during a lung segmentectomy using an iPad. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezr127
  4. 4.
    Volonte F, Robert JH, Ratib O, Triponez F (2011) A lung segmentectomy performed with 3D reconstruction images available on the operating table with an iPad. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 12(6):1066–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fritz F, Ständer S, Breil B, Riek M, Dugas M (2011) CIS-based registration of quality of life in a single source approach. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 11:26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wadhawan T, Situ N, Rui H, Lancaster K, Yuan X, Zouridakis G (2011) Implementation of the 7-point checklist for melanoma detection on smart handheld devices. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2011:3180–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rassweiler JJ, Müller M, Fangerau M, Klein J, Goezen AS, Pereira P, Meinzer HP, Teber D (2012) iPad-assisted percutaneous access to the kidney using marker-based navigation: initial clinical experience. Eur Urol 61(3):628–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vawdrey DK, Wilcox LG, Collins SA, Bakken S, Feiner S, Boyer A, Restaino SW (2011) A tablet computer application for patients to participate in their hospital care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011:1428–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soehngen E, Rahmah NN, Kakizawa Y, Horiuchi T, Fujii Y, Kiuchi T, Hongo K (2011) Operation-microscope-mounted touch display tablet computer for intraoperative imaging visualization: technical note and comparison with other modalities. World Neurosurg. doi:10.3205/11dgnc323
  10. 10.
    Ramey J, Fung KM, Hassell LA (2011) Use of mobile high-resolution device for remote frozen section evaluation of whole slide images. J Pathol Inform 2:41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy AD, Belcher HJ (2012) A novel method for sterile intra-operative iPad use. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(3):403–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Savel RH, Munro CL (2011) Scalpel, stethoscope, iPad: the future is now in the intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care 20(4):275–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lacquiere DA, Courtman S (2011) Use of the iPad in paediatric anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 66(7):629–30. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06735.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiser K (2011) The iPad project. Minn Med 94(4):12–14Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mashman W (2011) The iPad in cardiology: tool or toy? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4(2):258–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wong D, Joussen A (2011) Welcome to the Ipad generation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249(1):1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger E (2010) The iPad: gadget or medical Godsend? Ann Emerg Med 56(1):A21–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Am Soc Emergency Radiol 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pamela T. Johnson
    • 1
  • Stefan L. Zimmerman
    • 1
  • David Heath
    • 1
  • John Eng
    • 1
  • Karen M. Horton
    • 1
  • William W. Scott
    • 1
  • Elliot K. Fishman
    • 1
  1. 1.The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiologic ScienceJohns Hopkins School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations