CT bronchoscopy: optimization of imaging parameters.

The authors evaluated the relative importance of the following scanning parameters at computed tomographic bronchoscopy in an anesthetized adult sheep's thorax: section thickness (2, 4, 8 mm), pitch (1.0, 1.5, 2.0), milliampere setting (100, 175, 250 mA), and overlap of reconstructed sections (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%). Five blinded readers ranked the images twice in comparison with photographs of the mounted specimen. Differences in image quality were significant (P < .001) with section thickness of 2 mm and a pitch of 1.0. The milliampere setting had only a minor effect on image quality, and a 50% overlap of reconstructed sections was best.

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.

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.

Reconstructed helical CT scans: improvement in z-axis resolution compared with overlapped and nonoverlapped conventional CT scans.

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study was designed to assess the z-axis resolving capabilities of reconstructed helical CT scans obtained with various imaging parameters versus those of conventional CT scans and the effect of decreasing slice index on the z-axis resolution of helical CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A z-axis line-pair phantom was imaged using conventional nonoverlapped CT scans, conventional CT scans that overlapped by 50%, and helical CT scans with pitches of 1.0 and 1.5. All helical images were reconstructed at comparable slice indexes (image indexes of 2.0, 1.0, and 0.5 mm for pitch = 1.0, and image indexes of 3.0, 1.5, and 0.75 mm for pitch = 1.5). Midline coronal and sagittal reconstructed images were obtained to allow standardized visualization of line pairs. The reconstructed images were reviewed separately by 10 radiologists. RESULTS: The overall z-axis resolution of reconstructed helical CT scans equaled or exceeded that of nonoverlapped conventional CT scans in all cases and equaled that of 50% overlapped conventional CT scans in 75% of cases. The 1.0-pitch helical sequences showed improved z-axis resolution with decreasing slice index. No statistically significant improvement in z-axis resolution could be determined by the observers for 1.5-pitch sequences with decreasing slice index. CONCLUSION: The use of helical CT with a pitch of 1.0 or 1.5 and an increased slice index can improve the z-axis resolution of reconstructed images when compared with nonoverlapped conventional CT and frequently equals the resolution of 50% overlapped conventional CT. This improvement in z-axis resolution should improve the appearance of reconstructed images (as used in CT angiography and three-dimensional imaging) by reducing partial volume artifacts while affording faster scanning at a reduced skin-surface radiation dose.