Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zeman, R. K.
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, P. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zeman, R. K.
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, P. M.

Radiology, Vol 189, 395-400, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Routine helical CT of the abdomen: image quality considerations

RK Zeman, AS Zeiberg, WJ Davros, SM Ascher, CJ Cooper, DI Weltman, R Patt, BS Garra, DL Griego and PM Silverman
Department of Radiology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007.

PURPOSE: Both helical and nonhelical abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans were obtained to compare image quality, study the effect of patient size and collimation, and compare the frequency of visualization of normal abdominal structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 60 consecutive patients with clinically suspected metastatic malignancy. RESULTS: Both helical and nonhelical image quality was excellent, with equal mean image quality scores of 4.1 on a 5-point scale. In patients weighing more than 175 lb (79 kg), both helical and nonhelical image quality degraded equally when 5-mm collimation was used; 10-mm collimation resulted in excellent image quality, regardless of patient size. Small in-plane structures (eg, renal arteries, renal veins, pancreatic duct) were seen best on helical scans. With the addition of retrospectively reconstructed overlapping images, improvement in visualization of these structures was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Helical CT scanning should be the preferred means of acquiring routine abdominal CT images.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Jpn J Clin OncolHome page
S. Tanaka, A. Nakaizumi, T. Ioka, O. Oshikawa, H. Uehara, M. Nakao, K. Yamamoto, O. Ishikawa, H. Ohigashi, and T. Kitamra
Main Pancreatic Duct Dilatation: a Sign of High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2002; 32(10): 407 - 411.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
Y. Fukukura, F. Fujiyoshi, M. Sasaki, H. Inoue, S. Yonezawa, and M. Nakajo
Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Tumors of the Pancreas: Thin-Section Helical CT Findings
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2000; 174(2): 441 - 447.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1993 by the Radiological Society of North America.