Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT

Kenneth D. Hopper, Nancy C. Keeton, Claudia J. Kasales, Rickhesvar Mahraj, Mark A. Van Slyke, Sabrina V. Patrone, Paul S. Singer, Thomas R. Tenhave

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA conventional technique in abdominal computed tomography (CT). Twenty-five patients who had both a conventional high mA (> 300) and a 1.5 pitch low mA (80-125) helical CT within 3 months were selected for inclusion in the study. Patients were excluded who had a significant change in pathology between the two studies. The other parameters (injection rate, contrast type and volume, and filming window/level) were constant. The studies were randomized and blinded to five separate experienced readers who graded the studies by a variety of normal anatomical structures and pathological criteria. Overview questions also assessed noise, resolution, contrast, and overall quality. The abdominal wall/retroperitoneum and hiatal hernias were statistically better visualized on the conventional high mA studies. However, for all other normal anatomical and pathological sites, there was equivalent or better visualization on the helical versus the conventional CT examinations. The resolution of the helical studies was graded statistically better than the high mA conventional CT scans as was the amount of noise present on the images. While there was some advantage for conventional high mA CT with respect to contrast enhancement and low contrast sensitivity, these differences were not statistically significant. It appears from the data of this study that a low mA technique in evaluating the abdomen may be a useful option in performing routine abdominal CT. The radiation dose savings to the patient is significant and there appears to be little degradation of image quality using a low mA 1.5 helical versus mA conventional CT technique.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)54-59
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Imaging
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Fingerprint

Tomography
Noise
Contrast Sensitivity
Hiatal Hernia
Spiral Computed Tomography
Abdominal Wall
Abdomen
Radiation
Pathology
Injections

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Hopper, Kenneth D. ; Keeton, Nancy C. ; Kasales, Claudia J. ; Mahraj, Rickhesvar ; Van Slyke, Mark A. ; Patrone, Sabrina V. ; Singer, Paul S. ; Tenhave, Thomas R. / Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT. In: Clinical Imaging. 1998 ; Vol. 22, No. 1. pp. 54-59.
@article{847261a167114af097fc0f5dea0e04fe,
title = "Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT",
abstract = "The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA conventional technique in abdominal computed tomography (CT). Twenty-five patients who had both a conventional high mA (> 300) and a 1.5 pitch low mA (80-125) helical CT within 3 months were selected for inclusion in the study. Patients were excluded who had a significant change in pathology between the two studies. The other parameters (injection rate, contrast type and volume, and filming window/level) were constant. The studies were randomized and blinded to five separate experienced readers who graded the studies by a variety of normal anatomical structures and pathological criteria. Overview questions also assessed noise, resolution, contrast, and overall quality. The abdominal wall/retroperitoneum and hiatal hernias were statistically better visualized on the conventional high mA studies. However, for all other normal anatomical and pathological sites, there was equivalent or better visualization on the helical versus the conventional CT examinations. The resolution of the helical studies was graded statistically better than the high mA conventional CT scans as was the amount of noise present on the images. While there was some advantage for conventional high mA CT with respect to contrast enhancement and low contrast sensitivity, these differences were not statistically significant. It appears from the data of this study that a low mA technique in evaluating the abdomen may be a useful option in performing routine abdominal CT. The radiation dose savings to the patient is significant and there appears to be little degradation of image quality using a low mA 1.5 helical versus mA conventional CT technique.",
author = "Hopper, {Kenneth D.} and Keeton, {Nancy C.} and Kasales, {Claudia J.} and Rickhesvar Mahraj and {Van Slyke}, {Mark A.} and Patrone, {Sabrina V.} and Singer, {Paul S.} and Tenhave, {Thomas R.}",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00066-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "54--59",
journal = "Clinical Imaging",
issn = "0899-7071",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Hopper, KD, Keeton, NC, Kasales, CJ, Mahraj, R, Van Slyke, MA, Patrone, SV, Singer, PS & Tenhave, TR 1998, 'Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT', Clinical Imaging, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 54-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00066-1

Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT. / Hopper, Kenneth D.; Keeton, Nancy C.; Kasales, Claudia J.; Mahraj, Rickhesvar; Van Slyke, Mark A.; Patrone, Sabrina V.; Singer, Paul S.; Tenhave, Thomas R.

In: Clinical Imaging, Vol. 22, No. 1, 01.01.1998, p. 54-59.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT

AU - Hopper, Kenneth D.

AU - Keeton, Nancy C.

AU - Kasales, Claudia J.

AU - Mahraj, Rickhesvar

AU - Van Slyke, Mark A.

AU - Patrone, Sabrina V.

AU - Singer, Paul S.

AU - Tenhave, Thomas R.

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA conventional technique in abdominal computed tomography (CT). Twenty-five patients who had both a conventional high mA (> 300) and a 1.5 pitch low mA (80-125) helical CT within 3 months were selected for inclusion in the study. Patients were excluded who had a significant change in pathology between the two studies. The other parameters (injection rate, contrast type and volume, and filming window/level) were constant. The studies were randomized and blinded to five separate experienced readers who graded the studies by a variety of normal anatomical structures and pathological criteria. Overview questions also assessed noise, resolution, contrast, and overall quality. The abdominal wall/retroperitoneum and hiatal hernias were statistically better visualized on the conventional high mA studies. However, for all other normal anatomical and pathological sites, there was equivalent or better visualization on the helical versus the conventional CT examinations. The resolution of the helical studies was graded statistically better than the high mA conventional CT scans as was the amount of noise present on the images. While there was some advantage for conventional high mA CT with respect to contrast enhancement and low contrast sensitivity, these differences were not statistically significant. It appears from the data of this study that a low mA technique in evaluating the abdomen may be a useful option in performing routine abdominal CT. The radiation dose savings to the patient is significant and there appears to be little degradation of image quality using a low mA 1.5 helical versus mA conventional CT technique.

AB - The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA conventional technique in abdominal computed tomography (CT). Twenty-five patients who had both a conventional high mA (> 300) and a 1.5 pitch low mA (80-125) helical CT within 3 months were selected for inclusion in the study. Patients were excluded who had a significant change in pathology between the two studies. The other parameters (injection rate, contrast type and volume, and filming window/level) were constant. The studies were randomized and blinded to five separate experienced readers who graded the studies by a variety of normal anatomical structures and pathological criteria. Overview questions also assessed noise, resolution, contrast, and overall quality. The abdominal wall/retroperitoneum and hiatal hernias were statistically better visualized on the conventional high mA studies. However, for all other normal anatomical and pathological sites, there was equivalent or better visualization on the helical versus the conventional CT examinations. The resolution of the helical studies was graded statistically better than the high mA conventional CT scans as was the amount of noise present on the images. While there was some advantage for conventional high mA CT with respect to contrast enhancement and low contrast sensitivity, these differences were not statistically significant. It appears from the data of this study that a low mA technique in evaluating the abdomen may be a useful option in performing routine abdominal CT. The radiation dose savings to the patient is significant and there appears to be little degradation of image quality using a low mA 1.5 helical versus mA conventional CT technique.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031982971&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031982971&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00066-1

DO - 10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00066-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 9421657

AN - SCOPUS:0031982971

VL - 22

SP - 54

EP - 59

JO - Clinical Imaging

JF - Clinical Imaging

SN - 0899-7071

IS - 1

ER -