Multiplanar image reconstruction and 3D imaging using a musculoskeletal phantom: conventional versus helical CT.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to perform a detailed comparison of the relative performances of helical CT (pitches 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0) and conventional (overlapped and nonoverlapped) CT in detailed 3D and MPR musculoskeletal imaging. METHOD: A specially designed bone fragment phantom was imaged with multiple slice thicknesses using conventional (overlapped and nonoverlapped) and helical (varying pitch and slice index) CT. Studies were randomized, blinded, and graded using predetermined criteria by 10 radiologists. Statistical analysis included an assessment of raw image scores, a separate testing using duplicate copies of the conventional images as gold standards, and a multivariate model based upon the results of both scoring systems. RESULTS: When assessing raw scores of the images, conventional scans were consistently scored more favorably than helical studies. Decreasing the slice index improved conventional CT studies and helical studies with a pitch of 1.0, but showed no effect on helical studies with a pitch of > 1.0. When using the conventional studies as gold standards, the helical studies were consistently graded as poorer than conventional overlapped and nonoverlapped studies. CONCLUSION: For detailed musculoskeletal 3D and MPR work, helical CT may not adequately compare with conventional CT and offers no discernible advantage, particularly for pitches of > 1.0.

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.