There are two different types of Digital X-ray System CR and DR
Digital Radiography (DR) vs. Computed Radiography (CR)
Industry reports pose the decision as choosing between CR as the economical system and DR as the fast system that could triple throughput of patients.
With CareViews patented technology and value proposition there is little doubt on the best choice: CareView offers the best DR on the market for about the same price as CR.
The pluses of DR are well documented. It is a truly digital system with no cassettes and therefore none of the time consuming steps needed to process them. Images are ready for viewing in seconds instead of minutes, and DR produces excellent spatial resolution and higher quality images.
Our recommended list price for DR technology compares favorably to CR and is lower than most other technologies including CCD based DR systems available on the market.
Issues with CR Systems (highest life cost)
CR, developed in 1973, was the first digital radiography system used in medical imaging. CR systems have many features analogous to those of traditional film-screen systems because the cassette is used to house a photo-stimulable phosphor sheet. All x-ray exposures of a case are captured on the cassette which is then physically moved from the x-ray table to a separate processor where the images are processed and captured electronically (up to eight minutes per image). The CR workflow is similar to that of traditional radiography film with attendant delays. Because of the delay in image processing, it takes several minutes to identify errors in x-ray techniques, specifically subject positioning. This also presents a major problem with mobile x-ray units used with large animals as the processor is typically located back at the veterinarian’s main office. The cassettes have the same physical dimensions as film-based cassettes and typically do not require any physical modification to the x-ray generator and its table when a film-based system is being replaced with the CR digital system. As a result of this ease of replacement and low cost (refurbished 10-15 year old systems cost $10,000-15,000), CR-based systems have been the solution for many veterinarians wanting to convert to digital imaging. Unfortunately, image quality from these refurbished systems is lacking; the best of these systems have only 4.0 megapixels, compared to 9 megapixels for Careview system. Additionally, because the phosphor sheet in the cassette moves, it is subject to scratching and has a limited service life and higher maintenance costs. The processor for these systems is also problematic and requires considerable maintenance during its life.