Military field x-ray equipment.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to inform the medical profession of the present status of military field x-ray equipment and of the current concept of military roentgenology. Since the termination of World War II, many physicians, both civilian and military, have freely contributed suggestions, valuable time, and guidance to a recently completed development program. This communication will serve as a progress report to these workers and will show that many of their suggestions and recommendations have been incorporated in the new line of field units. Characteristics of the units, which make them suitable for military operations overseas, will be discussed, and the major items will be described and illustrated. History The difficulty of fully anticipating requirements in a military situation is well known. Since actual needs and future changes in concepts cannot be predicted, those engaged in planning must make decisions based on past experience and the best available technical and professional advice (1). At the outset of World War II, it was believed that foreign body localization would constitute the major portion of the radiological work in forward areas and that fluoroscopy would be the method of choice (2, 3, 6). It was planned to supply films and processing equipment only to fixed type hospitals where conventional x-ray equipment would be available. This was due, to a large extent, to an anticipated film shortage. Mobile surgical hospitals were to use fluoroscopy exclusively and were equipped only with a fluoroscopic foreign body localization table, an x-ray generator, and a darkroom tent. It was estimated that only 10 per cent of the activities in evacuation hospitals would be radiographic. General hospitals were to be equipped with conventional 100- and 200-ma. radiographic and fluoroscopic units designed for the civilian market. Contrary to original planning, fluoroscopy did not supplant radiography even in the most forward echelons. Films, processing chemicals, cassettes, and grids were demanded and supplied. The permanent record afforded by the film was considered necessary, and the surgeons wished to see the films rather than attempt to visualize the condition from a written report of the fluoroscopic examination (4, 5). Perhaps because of advances in the control of infection and of the more rapid evacuation of casualties to rear echelons, foreign body localization did not assume the importance anticipated, and most medical officers felt that the removal of foreign bodies should be done in rear areas. In an attempt to improve facilities for radiography, many radiologists improvised rigid plywood tops for the foreign body localization table which was designed to support only a standard Army litter. They also, whenever possible, obtained Bucky diaphragms and other accessories to improve film quality.