Skip to main content
Log in

Influence of detector collimation on SNR in four different MDCT scanners using a reconstructed slice thickness of 5 mm

  • Physics
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare the influence of detector collimation on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for a 5.0 mm reconstructed slice thickness for four multi-detector row CT (MDCT) units. SNRs were measured on Catphan test phantom images from four MDCT units: a GE LightSpeed QX/I, a Marconi MX 8000, a Toshiba Aquilion and a Siemens Volume Zoom. Five-millimetre-thick reconstructed slices were obtained from acquisitions performed using detector collimations of 2.0–2.5 mm and 5.0 mm, 120 kV, a 360° tube rotation time of 0.5 s, a wide range of mA and pitch values in the range of 0.75–0.85 and 1.25–1.5. For each set of acquisition parameters, a Wiener spectrum was also calculated. Statistical differences in SNR for the different acquisition parameters were evaluated using a Student’s t-test (P<0.05). The influence of detector collimation on the SNR for a 5.0-mm reconstructed slice thickness is different for different MDCT scanners. At pitch values lower than unity, the use of a small detector collimation to produce 5.0-mm thick slices is beneficial for one unit and detrimental for another. At pitch values higher than unity, using a small detector collimation is beneficial for two units. One manufacturer uses different reconstruction filters when switching from a 2.5- to a 5.0-mm detector collimation. For a comparable reconstructed slice thickness, using a smaller detector collimation does not always reduce image noise. Thus, the impact of the detector collimation on image noise should be determined by standard deviation calculations, and also by assessing the power spectra of the noise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kalender WA, Seissler W, Klotz E, Vock P (1990) Spiral volumetric CT with single-breath-hold technique, continuous transport, and continuous scanner rotation. Radiology 176:181–183

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Liang Y, Kruger RA (1996) Dual-slice spiral versus single-slice spiral scanning: comparison of the physical performance of two computed tomography scanners. Med Phys 23:205–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH (2000) Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 215:55–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. McCollough CH, Zink FE (1999) Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 26:2223–2230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hu H, Fox SH (1996) The effect of helical pitch and beam collimation on the lesion contrast and slice profile in helical CT imaging. Med Phys 23:1943–1954

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brooks RA, Di Chiro G (1976) Statistical limitations in X-ray reconstructive tomography. Med Phys 3:237–240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kalender WA, Schmidt B (2000) Recent advances in CT: will doses go down or will they go up? Physica Medica 16:137–144

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hu H, Shen Y (1998) Helical CT reconstruction with longitudinal filtration. Med Phys 25:2130–2138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hu H (1999) Multi-slice helical CT: scan and reconstruction. Med Phys 26:5–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Shin HO, Falck CV, Galanski M (2004) Low-contrast detectability in volume rendering: a phantom study on multidetector-row spiral CT data. Eur Radiol 14(2):341–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. International Electrotechnical Committee (1994) Medical diagnostic X-ray equipment—radiation conditions for use in the determination of characteristics. Standard IEC #61267, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  12. International Electrotechnical Committee (1999) Medical diagnostic X-ray equipment—particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for CT 1999. Standard IEC #60601-2-44, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  13. International Electrotechnical Committee (2002) Medical diagnostic X-ray equipment—particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for CT. Standard IEC #60601-2-44, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dainty JC, Shaw R (1974) Image science. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greess H, Lutze J, Nomayr A, Wolf H, Hothorn T, Kalender WA, Bautz W (2004) Dose reduction in subsecond multislice CT examination of children by online tube current modulation. Eur Radiol 14(6):995–999

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Dr J.-L Dreyer (Neuchâtel, Switzerland), Drs A. Blum and T. Ludig (Nancy, France) and Dr F. Sadry (Givisier, Switzerland) for providing the machine time required to perform the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. R. Verdun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verdun, F.R., Noel, A., Meuli, R. et al. Influence of detector collimation on SNR in four different MDCT scanners using a reconstructed slice thickness of 5 mm. Eur Radiol 14, 1866–1872 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2420-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2420-3

Keywords

Navigation