Advertisement

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

      Abstract

      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.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • King SH
        • Reynolds MD
        • Miller KL
        Surface dose comparison for spiral and axial scanning with use of a fourth-generation CT system.
        Radiology. 1993; 189: 356
        • van de Bruggen-Bogaarts BA
        • Broerse JJ
        • Lammers JW
        • van Waes PF
        • Geleijns J
        Radiation exposure in standard and high resolution chest CT scans.
        Chest. 1995; 107: 113-115
        • Beir V
        US National Academy of Sciences. Report by the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Washington, DC1989
        • Zwirewich CV
        • Mayo JR
        • Müller NL
        Low-dose high resolution CT of lung parenchyma.
        Radiology. 1991; 180: 413-417
        • Takahashi M
        • Ashtari M
        • Papp Z
        • et al.
        Low-dose spiral CT of the thorax.
        Radiology. 1994; 193: 338
        • Zeman RK
        • Fox SH
        • Silverman PM
        • et al.
        Helical (spiral) CT of the abdomen.
        AJR. 1993; 160: 719-725
        • Zeman RK
        • Zeiberg AS
        • Davros WJ
        • et al.
        Routine helical CT of the abdomen.
        Radiology. 1993; 189: 395-400
        • Polacin A
        • Kalender WA
        • Marchal G
        Evaluation of section sensitivity profiles and image noise in spiral CT.
        Radiology. 1992; 185: 29-35
        • Brink JA
        • Heiken JP
        • Balfe DM
        • Sagel SS
        • DiCrose J
        • Vannier MW
        Spiral CT.
        Radiology. 1992; 185: 469-474
        • Schlueter FJ
        • Wang G
        • Hsieh PS
        • Brink JA
        • Balfe DM
        • Vannier MW
        Longitudinal image deblurring in spiral CT.
        Radiology. 1994; 193: 413-418
        • Polacin A
        • Kalender WA
        Evaluation of spiral resolution and noise in spiral CT.
        Radiology. 1994; 193: 170
        • Crawford CR
        • King KF
        • Hu H
        Helical CT noise reduction with optimized starting angles.
        Radiology. 1994; 193: 170
        • Wang G
        • Vannier MW
        Longitudinal resolution in volumetric x-ray computed tomography—analytical comparison between conventional and helical computerized tomography.
        Med Phys. 1994; 21: 429-433
        • Kasales CJ
        • Hopper KD
        • Ariola DN
        • et al.
        Reconstructed helical CT scans.
        AJR. 1995; 164: 1281-1284
        • Davros WJ
        • Herts BR
        • Walmsley JJ
        • et al.
        Determination of spiral CT slice sensitivity profiles using a point response phantom.
        JCAT. 1995; 19: 838-843
        • Foley WD
        • Jacobson DR
        • Tomiak MM
        Performance of new operating modes for CT.
        Radiology. 1994; 193: 127
        • Chapuis L
        • Rogalla P
        • Goldberg HI
        • Gould RG
        • Thoeni RF
        Helical CT.
        Radiology. 1994; 193: 171
        • Rubin GD
        • Napel S
        Increased scan pitch for vascular and thoracic spiral CT.
        Radiology. 1995; 197: 316-317