TY - JOUR
T1 - Multiplanar image reconstruction and 3D imaging using a musculoskeletal phantom
T2 - Conventional versus helical CT
AU - Kasales, Claudia J.
AU - Mauger, David T.
AU - Sefczek, Robert J.
AU - Mahraj, Rickhesvaar
AU - Meilstrup, Jon W.
AU - Van Hook, David
AU - Patrone, Sabrina V.M.
AU - Sefczek, Donna M.
AU - Eggli, Kathleen D.
AU - Wise, Scott W.
AU - Westacott, Simon
AU - Hopper, Kenneth D.
PY - 1997/2/13
Y1 - 1997/2/13
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031028774&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031028774&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/00004728-199701000-00031
DO - 10.1097/00004728-199701000-00031
M3 - Article
C2 - 9022790
AN - SCOPUS:0031028774
SN - 0363-8715
VL - 21
SP - 162
EP - 169
JO - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
JF - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
IS - 1
ER -