Reliability and accuracy of straightforward measurements for liver volume determination in ultrasound and computed tomography compared to real volumetry.

To evaluate the suitability of volume index measurement (VI) by either ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) for the assessment of liver volume. Fifty-nine patients, 21 women, with a mean age of 66.8 ± 12.6 years underwent US of the liver followed immediately by abdominal CT. In US and CT imaging dorsoventral, mediolateral and craniocaudal liver diameters in their maximum extensions were assessed by two observers. VI was calculated by multiplication of the diameters divided by a constant (3.6). The liver volume determined by a manual segmentation in CT ("true liver volume") served as gold standard. True liver volume and calculated VI determined by US and CT were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Mean differences of VI between observers were - 34.7% (- 90.1%; 20.7%) for the US-based and 1.1% (- 16.1%; 18.2%) for the CT-based technique, respectively. Liver volumes determined by semi-automated segmentation, US-based VI and CT-based VI, were as follows: 1.500 ± 347cm3; 863 ± 371cm3; 1.509 ± 432cm3. Results showed a great discrepancy between US-based VI and true liver volume with a mean bias of 58.3 ± 66.9%, and high agreement between CT-based VI and true liver volume with a low mean difference of 4.4 ± 28.3%. Volume index based on CT diameters is a reliable, fast and simple approach for estimating liver volume and can therefore be recommended for clinical practice. The usage of US-based volume index for assessment of liver volume should not be used due to its low accuracy of US in measurement of liver diameters.

Comparison of sequential and high-pitch-spiral coronary CT-angiography: image quality and radiation exposure.

New protocols for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) could lower the radiation dose for patients but influence the image quality. To compare image quality and radiation exposure in step-and-shoot CCTA and high-pitch spiral CCTA. Fifty-nine pairs of patients matched for weight, height, sex and heart rate were included in this study (74 m, 44 f, average age 60 years, age range 29-94 years). Step-and-shoot CCTA and high-pitch spiral CCTA was performed on a third generation dual-source CT in equally sized patient groups. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the ascending aorta and the coronary arteries were determined for each dataset. Image quality was rated using a five-point scale. We used the t-test for paired samples to compare SNR and effective dose, and the Wilcoxon test to compare image quality scores. Mean effective dose for the step-and-shoot protocol (4.15 ± 3.07 mSv) was significantly higher in comparison to the high-pitch spiral protocol (1.2 ± 0.69 mSv; p < 0.0001). Mean SNR was higher with the step-and-shoot protocol compared to the high-pitch spiral protocol in the aorta, in the left main and peripheral coronary arteries (p < 0.01), in the proximal right coronary artery (p = 0.027). Image quality scores were significantly better for the step-and-shoot protocol (p = 0.0003). Step-and-shoot CCTA has significantly better SNR and overall image quality compared to high-pitch spiral CCTA, but with a mean effective dose more than thrice as high.