Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47

The objective of this study was to test whether extended 1.5 pitch helical computed tomography (CT) can be used for routine thoracic CT without a significant loss of clinical scan quality. Thirty consecutive patients presenting for contrast thoracic CT were computer randomized into one of three groups: conventional, 1.0 pitch helical, and 1.5 pitch helical. All other variables, including kV, mA, slice thickness and reconstruction interval, and contrast administration, were kept constant. The studies were randomized to five independent, blinded, experienced radiologists who rated visualization 25 normal structures, and up to five pathologic findings per patient. In addition, each reader evaluated the studies' contrast enhancement, low contrast sensitivity, linear resolution, motion artifact, noise, and overall quality. The visualization score for all normal and overall for pathological lesions did not vary between groups. The three groups were not equivalent for several individual pathologic categories. However, these differences were not consistently in favor of one technique over the other two. The overall score for scan quality was not significantly different between the three groups. Extended 1.5 pitch thoracic helical CT provides equivalent quality versus either 1.0 pitch helical or conventional CT. The use of 1.5 pitch helical thoracic CT allows faster scanning, greater patient coverage, and the use of reduced amounts of intravenous contrast.

Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT

The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA conventional technique in abdominal computed tomography (CT). Twenty-five patients who had both a conventional high mA (> 300) and a 1.5 pitch low mA (80-125) helical CT within 3 months were selected for inclusion in the study. Patients were excluded who had a significant change in pathology between the two studies. The other parameters (injection rate, contrast type and volume, and filming window/level) were constant. The studies were randomized and blinded to five separate experienced readers who graded the studies by a variety of normal anatomical structures and pathological criteria. Overview questions also assessed noise, resolution, contrast, and overall quality. The abdominal wall/retroperitoneum and hiatal hernias were statistically better visualized on the conventional high mA studies. However, for all other normal anatomical and pathological sites, there was equivalent or better visualization on the helical versus the conventional CT examinations. The resolution of the helical studies was graded statistically better than the high mA conventional CT scans as was the amount of noise present on the images. While there was some advantage for conventional high mA CT with respect to contrast enhancement and low contrast sensitivity, these differences were not statistically significant. It appears from the data of this study that a low mA technique in evaluating the abdomen may be a useful option in performing routine abdominal CT. The radiation dose savings to the patient is significant and there appears to be little degradation of image quality using a low mA 1.5 helical versus mA conventional CT technique.

Comparison of 1.0-, 1.5-, and 2.0-pitch abdominal helical computed tomography in evaluation of normal structures and pathologic lesions

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The authors performed a comprehensive prospective clinical trial comparing 1.0-, 1.5-, and 2.0-pitch abdominal helical computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation of normal and pathologic structures/lesions.

METHODS

Seventy-five consecutive patients were randomized by computer into one of three equal groups: helical CT pitch 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0. The imaging parameters and contrast enhancement of all 75 patients were kept constant. The 75 studies were masked, placed into a randomized order, and evaluated by five separate experienced radiologists who rated visualization of 25 normal structures and up to five pathologic findings per patient using a scale of 1 (not seen) to 5 (very well seen/very sharp margins).

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in 1.0- and 1.5-pitch abdominal CT scans when assessing the display of normal and pathologic lesions. In addition, helical pitch 1.0 and 1.5 studies were equivalent for both normal and pathologic structures/lesions, whereas equivalency was not demonstrated for helical pitch 2.0 studies. Overall study assessment questions again found equivalency between helical 1.0- and 1.5-pitch studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal CT performed with pitches of 1.0 and 1.5 are equivalent. Because of its advantages, we advocate the routine use of an extended pitch (1.5) in routine abdominal CT. Further studies are required to evaluate the usefulness of the helical 2.0-pitch technique.

The clinical usefulness of routine stacked multiplanar reconstruction in helical abdominal computed tomography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluate the usefulness of stacked multiplanar reconstructions in routine, thick-section abdominal computed tomography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five routine, thick-section contrast abdominal CTs performed with equivalent technique were reformatted by multiplanar reconstructions in sagittal and coronal planes sequentially from side-to-side and front-to-back. The image sets were submitted, first axial images only followed by axial plus multiplanar reconstructions (MPRs), to 5 separate physician readers including 2 radiologists and 3 nonradiologists. These readers graded the visualization of a variety of normal and up to 5 pathologic lesions per patient on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 = best).

RESULTS

The addition of sagittal and coronal multiplanar reconstructions significantly improved the visualization of all normal anatomic structures (mean axial only, 3.8; mean axial plus MPR, 4.1; P < 0.0001). In addition, most pathologic lesions were statistically better visualized with the addition of multiplanar reconstructions (mean axial images only, 3.9; mean axial plus MPR, 4.1; P < 0.0001). All five readers found improved visualization in nearly every category with the addition of the multiplanar reconstructions. However, in only 7% of cases, did a reviewer find new diagnostic information with the addition of MPR images.

CONCLUSIONS

Stacked multiplanar reconstructions of routine, thick-section abdominal CT has clinical value in both the display of normal anatomic and pathologic lesions. Further studies, however, are required to confirm these findings before it is commonly used.