Pediatric Radiology

, 26:891 | Cite as

Evaluation of image quality using 1∶1 pitch and 1.5∶1 pitch helical CT in children: a comparative study

  • Aruna Vade
  • Terrence C. Demos
  • Mary C. Olson
  • Perla Subbaiah
  • Richard C. Turbin
  • Katherine Vickery
  • Kevin Corrigan
Article

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare the quality of 1∶1 and 1.5 ∶1 pitch helical contrast-enhanced thoracic and abdominal CT images in children who cannot cooperate for breath holding.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective study of 33 contrast-enhanced CT examinations in 11 children of 0–4 years of age. All children had an initial CT study using 1∶1 pitch helical scanning followed over the next 6–36 months by one to four CT examinations with 1.5∶1 pitch. Radiation dose with the two techniques was measured with a pencil Ionization chamber.

Results

The two techniques provided comparable overall image quality. There was 33 % less radiation dose with 1.5∶1 pitch helical scanning.

Conclusion

The 1.5∶1 pitch helical CT provides comparable quality images and a smaller radiation dose than 1∶1 pitch in examining children aged 0–4 years.

Keywords

Helical Scanning Small Radiation Dose Pitch Type Grade Image Quality Slice Sensitivity Profile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Heiken JP, Brink JA, Vannier MW (1993) Spiral (helical) CT. Radiology 189: 647–656Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costello P, Anderson W, Blume D (1991) Pulmonary nodule: evaluation with spiral volumetric CT. Radiology 179: 875–876Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Posniak HV, Olson MC, Demos TC, Pierce KL, Kalbhen CL (1994) CTof chest and abdomen in patients on mechanical pulmonary ventilators: quality of images made at 0.6 versus 1.0 seconds. AJR 163: 1073–1077PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Urban B A, Fishman EK, Kuhlman JE, Kawashima A, Hennessey JG, Siegel-man SS (1993) Detection of focal hepatic lesions with spiral CT: comparison of 4- and 8-mm interscan spacing. AJR 160:783–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Remy-Jardin M, Remy J, Giraud F, Marquette CH (1993) Pulmonary nodules: detection with thick-section spiral CT versus conventional CT. Radiology 187: 513–520Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dupuy DE, Costello P, Ecker CP (1992) Spiral CT of the pancreas. Radiology 183: 815–818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalender WA, Seissler W, Klotz E, Vock P (1990) Spiral volumetric CT with single-breath hold technique, continuous transport, and continuous scanner rotation. Radiology 176:181–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polacin A, Kalender WA, Marchal G (1992) Evaluation of section sensitivity profiles and image noise in spiral CT. Radiology 185:29–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brink JA, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Sagel SS, DiCroce J, Vannier MW (1992) Spiral CT: decreased spatial resolution in vivo due to broadening of section-sensitivity profile. Radiology 185: 469–474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brink JA, Vannier MW, Heiken JP, Kalender WA, Yoffie RL, Brundsen BS (1992) Abdomen spiral CT: effect of interpolation algorithm, collimation and zoom on effective section thickness and noise (abstract). Radiology 185(P): 126Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aruna Vade
    • 1
  • Terrence C. Demos
    • 1
  • Mary C. Olson
    • 1
  • Perla Subbaiah
    • 2
  • Richard C. Turbin
    • 1
  • Katherine Vickery
    • 1
  • Kevin Corrigan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyLoyola University Medical CenterMaywoodUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesOakland UniversityRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations