AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brody, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kuhn, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brody, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kuhn, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 153, Issue 4, 803-806
Copyright © 1989 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

CT evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma in children: comparison of ultrafast and conventional CT

AS Brody, FG Seidel, and JP Kuhn

Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital, Buffalo, NY 14222.

Previous reports describing the use of ultrafast CT have emphasized its value in evaluating the heart, chest, and airway. We describe our experience using this technology on children with blunt abdominal trauma. We retrospectively reviewed 54 consecutive ultrafast CT studies and 30 consecutive conventional dynamic CT studies performed on children after blunt abdominal trauma. Thirty percent of the scans showed abnormalities. CT or pathologic follow-up was available for all abnormal cases. We compared scans made with these two techniques for diagnostic accuracy, amount of visible motion on each slice, and contrast enhancement seen on each study. A protocol of 0.4-sec images and 2 ml/kg IV contrast material administered before scanning was used for the ultrafast CT scans. A standard protocol of 2-sec scanning and 3 ml/kg IV contrast material was used for conventional CT studies. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two techniques. There was significantly less visible motion (p less than .0001) and significantly better contrast enhancement (p less than .0001) seen on the ultrafast CT studies. Two of 54 ultrafast scans had images with sufficient motion to require repeated scanning, compared with 13 of 30 conventional CT studies. In addition, ultrafast scans required less sedation, decreased radiation dose, and improved accessibility of the patient to support personnel. Ultrafast CT is a valuable technique for abdominal imaging, offering equal diagnostic accuracy with improved image quality and important benefits to the patient.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.