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

Claudia Kasales, David Mauger, Robert J. Sefczek, Rickhesvar Mahraj, Jon W. Meilstrup, David Van Hook, Sabrina V.M. Patrone, Donna M. Sefczek, Kathleen D. Eggli, Scott W. Wise, Simon Westacott, Kenneth D. Hopper

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)162-169
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 13 1997

Fingerprint

Computer-Assisted Image Processing
Spiral Computed Tomography
Bone and Bones

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Kasales, Claudia ; Mauger, David ; Sefczek, Robert J. ; Mahraj, Rickhesvar ; Meilstrup, Jon W. ; Van Hook, David ; Patrone, Sabrina V.M. ; Sefczek, Donna M. ; Eggli, Kathleen D. ; Wise, Scott W. ; Westacott, Simon ; Hopper, Kenneth D. / Multiplanar image reconstruction and 3D imaging using a musculoskeletal phantom : Conventional versus helical CT. In: Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 1997 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 162-169.
@article{662668f2b0724cce820862c41a5d30cd,
title = "Multiplanar image reconstruction and 3D imaging using a musculoskeletal phantom: Conventional versus helical CT",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Claudia Kasales and David Mauger and Sefczek, {Robert J.} and Rickhesvar Mahraj and Meilstrup, {Jon W.} and {Van Hook}, David and Patrone, {Sabrina V.M.} and Sefczek, {Donna M.} and Eggli, {Kathleen D.} and Wise, {Scott W.} and Simon Westacott and Hopper, {Kenneth D.}",
year = "1997",
month = "2",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1097/00004728-199701000-00031",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "162--169",
journal = "Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography",
issn = "0363-8715",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

Kasales, C, Mauger, D, Sefczek, RJ, Mahraj, R, Meilstrup, JW, Van Hook, D, Patrone, SVM, Sefczek, DM, Eggli, KD, Wise, SW, Westacott, S & Hopper, KD 1997, 'Multiplanar image reconstruction and 3D imaging using a musculoskeletal phantom: Conventional versus helical CT', Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199701000-00031

Multiplanar image reconstruction and 3D imaging using a musculoskeletal phantom : Conventional versus helical CT. / Kasales, Claudia; Mauger, David; Sefczek, Robert J.; Mahraj, Rickhesvar; Meilstrup, Jon W.; Van Hook, David; Patrone, Sabrina V.M.; Sefczek, Donna M.; Eggli, Kathleen D.; Wise, Scott W.; Westacott, Simon; Hopper, Kenneth D.

In: Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, Vol. 21, No. 1, 13.02.1997, p. 162-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multiplanar image reconstruction and 3D imaging using a musculoskeletal phantom

T2 - Conventional versus helical CT

AU - Kasales, Claudia

AU - Mauger, David

AU - Sefczek, Robert J.

AU - Mahraj, Rickhesvar

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

VL - 21

SP - 162

EP - 169

JO - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

JF - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

SN - 0363-8715

IS - 1

ER -