Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 13, Supplement 5, pp 3–13 | Cite as

Multislice CT: technical principles and future trends

  • Mathias ProkopEmail author
Article

Abstract

Multislice scanning has substantially improved the performance of CT scanners, and thus the relation between scan duration, available scan length, and spatial resolution along the patient axis (z-axis). Near-isotropic imaging of whole organ systems is already possible with 4-slice scanners, but only with 8- to 16-slice scanners can the scan duration be shortened as well. Reconstructing overlapping thin-section data (“secondary raw data set”) provides the basis for image reconstruction in any desired plane. By using thick multiplanar reformation (MPR) techniques, image quality can be improved while keeping patient dose low. Using unfavorable scanning parameters, exposure dose can be substantially increased compared with single-slice scanning, but thick MPR and individual-dose modulation techniques can provide the basis for dose reduction. Low-kVp scanning, in particular, is useful in children and slim adults and is an excellent technique to improve image contrast in CT angiographic studies. Short spiral scans should be avoided with multislice CT since overranging (extra rotations at the beginning and end of the scan, used for data interpolation) can substantially increase patient dose. Future trends include the introduction of thinner detector rows, wider detector arrays, faster tube rotation, and area detectors than can also be used for fluoroscopy. Noise-reduction techniques and individual dose modulation will gain importance with higher isotropic resolution. Functional and perfusion imaging, as well as advanced image processing and computer-aided diagnosis programs, will add to the possibilities of the next generation of multislice CT scanners.

Keywords

CT technique Multislice CT Radiation dose Multiplanar reformations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Klingenbeck-Regn K, Schaller S, Flohr T, Ohnesorge B, Kop AF, Baum U (1999) Subsecond multi-slice computed tomography: basics and applications. Eur J Radiol 31:110–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH (2000) Four multi-detector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 215:55–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rubin GD, Shiau MC, Leung AN, Kee ST, Logan LJ, Sofilos MC (2000) Aorta and iliac arteries: single- versus multiple detector-row helical CT angiography. Radiology 215:670–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brink JA (2003) Contrast optimization and scan timing for single- and multidetector-row computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27 (Supp 1):S3–S8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hittmair K, Fleischmann D (2001) Accuracy of predicting and controlling time-dependent aortic enhancement from a test-bolus injection. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:287–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahesh M (2002) The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: search for isotropic resolution in CT from conventional through multiple-row detector. Radiographics 22:949–962PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flohr T, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H, Simon J, Schaller S (2002) New technical developments in multislice CT. Part 1: Approaching isotropic resolution with sub-millimeter 16-slice scanning. RöFo Fortschr Röntgenstr 174:839–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rubin GD (2000) Data explosion: the challenge of multidetector-row CT. Eur J Radiol 36:74–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Proksa R, Kohler T, Grass M, Timmer J (2000) The n-PI-method for helical cone-beam CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 19:848–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang G, Vannier MW (1999) The effect of pitch in multislice spiral/helical CT. Med Phys 26:2648–2653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuchs T, Krause J, Schaller S, Flohr T, Kalender WA (2000) Spiral interpolation algorithms for multislice spiral CT. Part II: Measurement and evaluation of slice sensitivity profiles and noise at a clinical multislice system. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 19:835–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taguchi K, Aradate H (1998) Algorithm for image reconstruction in multi-slice helical CT. Med Phys 25:550–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taguchi K, Zeng GL, Gullberg GT (2001) Cone-beam image reconstruction using spherical harmonics. Phys Med Biol 46:N127–N138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kachelriess M, Schaller S, Kalender WA (2000) Advanced single-slice rebinning in cone-beam spiral CT. Med Phys 27:574–572Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schaller S, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H et al. (2001) Novel approximate approach for high-quality image reconstruction in helical cone-beam CT at arbitrary pitch. Proc SPIE 4322:113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prokop M (2003) Optimization of scanning technique. In: Prokop M, Galanski M (eds) Spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 109–130Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Levine LA, Piazzo DJ, Doncaster RJ, Halpern EF, Jordan PF, Thrall JH (2001) Effect of multislice-CT technology on scanner productivity. AJR 177:769–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prokop M (2003) Image processing and display techniques. In: Prokop M, Galanski M (eds) Spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 45–82Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prokop M (2003) Radiation exposure and image quality. In: Prokop M, Galanski M (eds) Spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 131–160Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCollough CH, Zink FE (1999) Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 26:2223–2230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weidekamm C, Prokop M, Herold C (2002) Low-kVp settings improve contrast enhancement and reduce radiation exposure in spiral CT of pulmonary emboli. Eur Radiol 12:149Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kachelriess M, Watzke O, Kalender WA (2001) Generalized multi-dimensional adaptive filtering for conventional and spiral single-slice, multi-slice, and cone-beam CT. Med Phys 28:475–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U et al. (2000) Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based online modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 10:391–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations