RadioGraphics
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krohmer, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krohmer, J. S.

RadioGraphics, Vol 9, 1129-1153, Copyright © 1989 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Radiography and fluoroscopy, 1920 to the present

JS Krohmer

A survey of radiological procedures carried out in 1980 by J. L. Johnson and D. L. Abernathy indicated that of the 181 million procedures performed in that year, there were 77.5% plain radiographic studies, 12.7% contrast studies, 4.0% sonographic studies, 3.2% nuclear medicine studies, 1.8% CT studies and 0.8% special vascular procedures and cardiac catheterizations. Note that over 90% of all the studies were of the "conventional" type and that fewer than 2% were CT studies. In the early 70's when CT was introduced, it was predicted that it would soon take over most of radiography; some 7 or 8 years later, it was obvious that this would not take place. According to Tanako of the Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., conventional radiography has resisted being pushed aside because of its very high information content: 4-6 megabytes per image. A CT image contains about 0.5 megabytes. If a system is to take over from conventional radiography, it will have to overcome this large difference in information content. Digital or computed radiography seems capable of this, but probably not for some time (perhaps, 10 or 20 years). It seems unlikely that there will be much change, except for refinement, in the image intensified fluoroscopy equipment used for observing dynamic processes, and it will probably not be replaced. Another situation which will preclude the rapid demise of conventional radiography is financial inertia: There is between 5 and 10 billion dollars worth of diagnostic equipment in hospitals in this country and significant amount more in private offices and clinics. It is true that the amount has diminished in recent years, but this has been more because of DRG's than because of "takeover" by new modes of imaging. It is not likely that this investment will be given up quickly or easily. One must also keep in mind that the film digitization and the photostimulable phosphor digital systems, described above, do use existing radiographic equipment, and the image intensification system uses a great portion of existing fluoroscopic equipment, therefore "going digital" may not require complete replacement of existing equipment.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
B. A. Schueler
The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents General Overview of Fluoroscopic Imaging
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2000; 20(4): 1115 - 1126.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. R. Heitzman
Thoracic Radiology: The Past 50 Years
Radiology, February 1, 2000; 214(2): 309 - 313.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOGRAPHICS RADIOLOGY RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1989 by the Radiological Society of North America.