American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 172, 1675-1682, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Temporal bone: comparison of isotropic helical CT and conventional direct axial and coronal CT

KS Caldemeyer, K Sandrasegaran, CN Shinaver, VP Mathews, RR Smith and KK Kopecky
Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis 46202-5253, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare helical CT (with reformation of coronal images from the axial data set) with conventional direct axial and coronal CT of the temporal bones. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients underwent both conventional 1- mm direct axial and coronal CT and helical 0.5-mm axial CT. The helical data set was reconstructed at 0.2-mm increments, and axial and coronal images were reconstructed in a plane similar to that of the conventional study, with a slice width of 0.5 mm and 0.5-mm increments. Forty small structures were evaluated independently by three observers, who were unaware of the method of imaging. Observers graded the 40 structures using a modified Likert scale. The graded differences between the two techniques were evaluated using a paired t test. Correlation between observers' gradings was evaluated using analysis of variance. RESULTS: The helical CT technique scored significantly higher than the conventional technique for many individual structures and groups of structures (scutum [p = .041], stapes footplate [p = .006], stapes crura [p = .004], oval window [p = .026], crista falciformis [p = .006], whole temporal bone [P = .012], middle ear [p = .033], inner ear [p = .021], ossicles [p = .044], and stapes [p = .010]). The correlation coefficient among observers was .91 for the whole temporal bone. CONCLUSION: Helical CT using 0.5-mm technique and reconstruction produces diagnostic images comparable with or superior to conventional 1-mm technique because helical CT can obtain thinner slices.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. A. Jaffe, L. C. Martin, C. M. Miller, K. M. Franklin, E. M. Merkle, W. M. Thompson, R. C. Nelson, D. M. DeLong, and E. K. Paulson Abdominal Pain: Coronal Reformations from Isotropic Voxels with 16-Section CT--Reader Lesion Detection and Interpretation Time Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 175 - 181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Henrot, S. Iochum, T. Batch, L. Coffinet, A. Blum, and J. Roland Current Multiplanar Imaging of the Stapes AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., September 1, 2005; 26(8): 2128 - 2133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Jager, H. Bonell, M. Liebl, S. Srivastav, V. Arbusow, M. Hempel, and M. Reiser CT of the Normal Temporal Bone: Comparison of Multi- and Single-Detector Row CT Radiology, April 1, 2005; 235(1): 133 - 141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Witte, J. I. Lane, C. L. W. Driscoll, L. B. Lundy, M. A. Bernstein, A. L. Kotsenas, and A. Kocharian Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implantation RadioGraphics, September 1, 2003; 23(5): 1185 - 1200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Honda, T. Johkoh, S. Yamamoto, M. Koyama, N. Tomiyama, T. Kozuka, S. Hamada, N. Mihara, H. Nakamura, and N. L. Muller Comparison of Quality of Multiplanar Reconstructions and Direct Coronal Multidetector CT Scans of the Lung Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2002; 179(4): 875 - 879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. A. Buckwalter, J. Rydberg, K. K. Kopecky, K. Crow, and E. L. Yang Musculoskeletal Imaging with Multislice CT Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176(4): 979 - 986. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Rydberg, K. A. Buckwalter, K. S. Caldemeyer, M. D. Phillips, D. J. Conces Jr, A. M. Aisen, S. A. Persohn, and K. K. Kopecky Multisection CT: Scanning Techniques and Clinical Applications RadioGraphics, November 1, 2000; 20(6): 1787 - 1806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]