We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Image quality from high-resolution CT of the lung: comparison of axial scans and of sections reconstructed from volumetric data acquired using MDCT.
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2005 September
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the image quality of reconstructed thin sections obtained from a 16-MDCT scanner with that of axial high-resolution CT scans of the same patient.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients referred for CT of the chest underwent 16-MDCT and, subsequently, axial high-resolution CT. The volumetric raw data from the MDCT scans were reconstructed into slices 2-mm thick using a high-spatial-frequency reconstruction algorithm. Two blinded reviewers independently rated the images from both methods for subjective image-quality criteria. The results were tested for statistical significance using Wilcoxon's signed rank test, and p values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. The effective dose for axial high-resolution CT and volumetric MDCT was calculated.
RESULTS: Motion artifacts were significantly more common on high-resolution CT scans than on reconstructed thin-section images (p < 0.001). The two methods differed significantly in lung attenuation (p = 0.008), mainly because of the presence of ground-glass opacities. The assessment of ground-glass attenuation was superior on axial high-resolution CT. The effective doses were 3.8 mSv for MDCT and 0.9 mSv for high-resolution CT.
CONCLUSION: Reconstructed high-resolution images generated from a single MDCT data acquisition are of comparable quality to images obtained using conventional axial high-resolution CT. However, contiguous MDCT is not recommended for diseases showing predominantly ground-glass patterns, because axial high-resolution CT delineates ground-glass attenuation significantly better.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients referred for CT of the chest underwent 16-MDCT and, subsequently, axial high-resolution CT. The volumetric raw data from the MDCT scans were reconstructed into slices 2-mm thick using a high-spatial-frequency reconstruction algorithm. Two blinded reviewers independently rated the images from both methods for subjective image-quality criteria. The results were tested for statistical significance using Wilcoxon's signed rank test, and p values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. The effective dose for axial high-resolution CT and volumetric MDCT was calculated.
RESULTS: Motion artifacts were significantly more common on high-resolution CT scans than on reconstructed thin-section images (p < 0.001). The two methods differed significantly in lung attenuation (p = 0.008), mainly because of the presence of ground-glass opacities. The assessment of ground-glass attenuation was superior on axial high-resolution CT. The effective doses were 3.8 mSv for MDCT and 0.9 mSv for high-resolution CT.
CONCLUSION: Reconstructed high-resolution images generated from a single MDCT data acquisition are of comparable quality to images obtained using conventional axial high-resolution CT. However, contiguous MDCT is not recommended for diseases showing predominantly ground-glass patterns, because axial high-resolution CT delineates ground-glass attenuation significantly better.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
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