HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Takahashi, K. Articles by Sugimori, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Takahashi, K. Articles by Sugimori, H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Visualization of Normal Pulmonary Fissures on Sagittal Multiplanar Reconstruction MDCT

¹ Department of Radiology, Asahikawa Medical College and Hospital, 2-1-1-1 Midorigaowa-higashi, Asahikawa, 078-8510 Japan.
² Department of Radiology, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242.

View larger version (45K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1A —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as sharp line with no stairstep artifact on images obtained using 0.5-mm collimation (A and B) and 1-mm collimation (C and D) and pitch of 1 or 1.5.

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1B —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as sharp line with no stairstep artifact on images obtained using 0.5-mm collimation (A and B) and 1-mm collimation (C and D) and pitch of 1 or 1.5.

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1C —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as sharp line with no stairstep artifact on images obtained using 0.5-mm collimation (A and B) and 1-mm collimation (C and D) and pitch of 1 or 1.5.

View larger version (44K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1D —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as sharp line with no stairstep artifact on images obtained using 0.5-mm collimation (A and B) and 1-mm collimation (C and D) and pitch of 1 or 1.5.

View larger version (40K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1E —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as slightly thick line with no and mild stairstep artifact on images obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (E) and 1.5 (F).

View larger version (42K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1F —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as slightly thick line with no and mild stairstep artifact on images obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (E) and 1.5 (F).

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1G —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as significantly thick line with mild and severe stairstep artifact on images obtained using 3-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (G) and 1.5 (H).

View larger version (41K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1H —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images of phantom major fissure. Phantom major fissure is visualized as significantly thick line with mild and severe stairstep artifact on images obtained using 3-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (G) and 1.5 (H).

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2A —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as thin line with no and mild stairstep artifact on sagittal images using 0.5-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (A) and 1.5 (B).

View larger version (37K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2B —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as thin line with no and mild stairstep artifact on sagittal images using 0.5-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (A) and 1.5 (B).

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2C —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as slightly thick line on images obtained using 1-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (C) and 1.5 (D).

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2D —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as slightly thick line on images obtained using 1-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (C) and 1.5 (D).

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2E —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as significantly thick line on images obtained with 2-mm collimation at ptich of 1 (E) and 1.5 (F) and 3-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (G) and 1.5 (H).

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2F —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as significantly thick line on images obtained with 2-mm collimation at ptich of 1 (E) and 1.5 (F) and 3-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (G) and 1.5 (H).

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2G —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as significantly thick line on images obtained with 2-mm collimation at ptich of 1 (E) and 1.5 (F) and 3-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (G) and 1.5 (H).

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2H —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of phantom minor fissure. On MPR images with 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation, stairstep artifact was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5. Phantom minor fissure is visualized as significantly thick line on images obtained with 2-mm collimation at ptich of 1 (E) and 1.5 (F) and 3-mm collimation at pitch of 1 (G) and 1.5 (H).

View larger version (112K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3A —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images obtained with each of scanning parameters show typical appearance of interlobar fissures in five patients. Upper and lower portions of right major fissure and minor fissure are visualized as sharp line on images obtained using 0.5-mm collimation in 57-year-old woman (A) and 1-mm collimation in 62-year-old man (B) at pitch of 1.5.

View larger version (174K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3B —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images obtained with each of scanning parameters show typical appearance of interlobar fissures in five patients. Upper and lower portions of right major fissure and minor fissure are visualized as sharp line on images obtained using 0.5-mm collimation in 57-year-old woman (A) and 1-mm collimation in 62-year-old man (B) at pitch of 1.5.

View larger version (174K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3C —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images obtained with each of scanning parameters show typical appearance of interlobar fissures in five patients. Upper and lower portions of right major fissure and minor fissure are visualized as blurred line (arrows) on images obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1 in 55-year-old man (C) and at pitch of 1.5 in 68-year-old woman (D).

View larger version (162K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3D —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images obtained with each of scanning parameters show typical appearance of interlobar fissures in five patients. Upper and lower portions of right major fissure and minor fissure are visualized as blurred line (arrows) on images obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1 in 55-year-old man (C) and at pitch of 1.5 in 68-year-old woman (D).

View larger version (110K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3E —Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images obtained with each of scanning parameters show typical appearance of interlobar fissures in five patients. Upper and lower portions of right major fissure and minor fissure in 51-year-old man are visualized as hyperattenuating band (arrows) on image obtained using 3-mm collimation at pitch of 1.5.

View larger version (200K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4A —Poor visualization of upper major fissure and minor fissure on sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images in three patients. Image obtained using 1-mm collimation at pitch of 1.5 shows that lower portion of right major fissure in 60-year-old man appears as sharp line, whereas its upper portion and minor fissure appear as blurred line (arrow).

View larger version (172K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4B —Poor visualization of upper major fissure and minor fissure on sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images in three patients. Image obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1 shows that lower portion of right major fissure in 48-year-old woman appears as sharp line, whereas its upper portion and minor fissure appear as blurred line (arrows).

View larger version (183K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4C —Poor visualization of upper major fissure and minor fissure on sagittal multiplanar reconstruction images in three patients. Image obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1.5 shows that lower portion of right major fissure in 66-year-old man appears as blurred line, whereas its upper portion and minor fissure appear as hypoattenuating band (arrows).

View larger version (148K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5A —72-year-old man with lung cancer in superior segment of right lower lobe. Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) image obtained using 0.5-mm collimation at pitch of 1.5 shows tumor abutting and retracting major fissure but not involving minor fissure.

View larger version (147K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5B —72-year-old man with lung cancer in superior segment of right lower lobe. MPR image obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1.5 does not clearly show anatomic relationship between tumor and interlobar fissures.

View larger version (187K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6A —69-year-old man with lung cancer in anteromedial basal segment of left lower lobe. Sagittal multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) image obtained using 1-mm collimation at pitch of 1.5 shows neoplastic lobulations extending fissural plane (arrows).

View larger version (170K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6B —69-year-old man with lung cancer in anteromedial basal segment of left lower lobe. MPR image obtained using 2-mm collimation at pitch of 1.5 does not clearly show relationship between tumor margin and fissural plane.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati