We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Unenhanced helical CT using increased pitch for suspected renal colic: an effective technique for radiation dose reduction?
Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 2000 September
PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy and utility of unenhanced helical CT for suspected renal colic, using a pitch of either 2.5 or 3.0.
METHODS: 59 consecutive patients underwent unenhanced helical CT. 5 mm contiguous images were obtained at a kVP of 120 and an mA of 260. Thirty-four patients were imaged at a pitch of 2.5, and 25 patients were imaged at a pitch of 3.0. Two radiologists, an attending (reader 1), and a second-year resident (reader 2), independently and retrospectively reviewed the CT images, blinded to the clinical outcome. The presence or absence of a ureteral stone was recorded and image quality was graded. A third radiologist determined accuracy for each reader. Average entrance exposure was estimated using a CT phantom at a variety of pitches.
RESULTS: Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for reader 1 were 91, 96, and 93%. For reader 2, they were 86, 93, and 90%. There was no significant difference in accuracy using a pitch of 3.0 compared with 2.5 for either reader. Readers 1 and 2 rated image quality at 2.5 pitch as excellent for 88 and 76% of scans, respectively; at 3.0 pitch the scans were rated by both readers as excellent for 40% and acceptable for 60%. Average entrance exposures were estimated at 461, 553. and 913 mR at pitches of 3.0, 2.5, and 1.5.
CONCLUSION: Increasing the pitch on unenhanced helical CT for suspected renal colic to 2.5 or 3.0 appears to be an effective method of reducing radiation dose. Although accuracy of the technique did not significantly change using a pitch of 3.0 in one group of patients, compared with a pitch of 2.5 in another group of patients, image quality did decrease.
METHODS: 59 consecutive patients underwent unenhanced helical CT. 5 mm contiguous images were obtained at a kVP of 120 and an mA of 260. Thirty-four patients were imaged at a pitch of 2.5, and 25 patients were imaged at a pitch of 3.0. Two radiologists, an attending (reader 1), and a second-year resident (reader 2), independently and retrospectively reviewed the CT images, blinded to the clinical outcome. The presence or absence of a ureteral stone was recorded and image quality was graded. A third radiologist determined accuracy for each reader. Average entrance exposure was estimated using a CT phantom at a variety of pitches.
RESULTS: Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for reader 1 were 91, 96, and 93%. For reader 2, they were 86, 93, and 90%. There was no significant difference in accuracy using a pitch of 3.0 compared with 2.5 for either reader. Readers 1 and 2 rated image quality at 2.5 pitch as excellent for 88 and 76% of scans, respectively; at 3.0 pitch the scans were rated by both readers as excellent for 40% and acceptable for 60%. Average entrance exposures were estimated at 461, 553. and 913 mR at pitches of 3.0, 2.5, and 1.5.
CONCLUSION: Increasing the pitch on unenhanced helical CT for suspected renal colic to 2.5 or 3.0 appears to be an effective method of reducing radiation dose. Although accuracy of the technique did not significantly change using a pitch of 3.0 in one group of patients, compared with a pitch of 2.5 in another group of patients, image quality did decrease.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app