Skip to main content
Log in

The DICOM review stations: are they truly different?

  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiac Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital acquisition systems are widely used nowadays. The digitization of the cath lab environment is now directed towards the change in the exchange media from an analog (i.e. cinefilm) to a digital (i.e. CD-R) medium. An important consequence of this development is the need for another type of review system. This article focuses on the replacement of the cineprojector by a digital equivalent: the DICOM review station. Since the technologies differ fundamentally, the DICOM review station has very little in common with its analog predecessor. This article explains the basics of DICOM review stations. Different approaches, both in hardware and in software, are possible, each showing their advantages and drawbacks. The impact of choices made by the industry will be illustrated by a number of commercially available DICOM review stations. Further, the article discusses the topics of diagnostic image quality and performance. In our opinion, these are the major topics when it comes to an objective comparison of the capabilities of DICOM review stations. The relation of these subjects with design choices in terms of hardware and software are discussed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ACC/ACR/NEMA Ad Hoc Group, ‘ACC, ACR and industry develop a standard for digital transfer of angiographic images’, J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 25: 800-2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The Cardiac and Vascular Information Working Group of DICOM, 'Digital Cardiac Imaging in the 21st Century: A Primer;, ACC/ASNC/ESC/ASE, 1997.

  3. Parisot C, 'The DICOM standard;, Int J Cardiac Imag 1995; 11 (3): 171-7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goedhart B, Reiber JHC, ‘The Role of DICOM in the Digital Catheterization Laboratory’, In ‘Cardiovascular Imaging’, Reiber JHC, van der Wall EE (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, 1996; 171-84.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zwet PMJ van der, Reiber JHC, ‘The influence of image enhancement and recon-struction on quantitative coronary analysis’, Int J Cardiac Imag 1995; 11: 211-21.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bronkalla M, Kennedy T, ‘Holding out for a digital solution’, J Cardiovasc Management 1993; 11/12: 21-4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Weisteen Bjerde K, ‘IPI, MEDICOM and DICOM: Relations and possible future’, Int J Cardiac Imag 1995; 11 (3): 165-70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goedhart, B., Brand, GJ. & Reiber, J.H. The DICOM review stations: are they truly different?. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 14, 317–322 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006025826795

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006025826795

Keywords

Navigation