AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Takahashi, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sugimori, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Takahashi, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sugimori, H.
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?

Visualization of Normal Pulmonary Fissures on Sagittal Multiplanar Reconstruction MDCT

Koji Takahashi1,2, Brad Thompson2, William Stanford2, Yutaka Sato2, Kenichi Nagasawa1, Hiroaki Sato1, Makoto Kubota1, Ayako Kashiba1 and Hiroyuki Sugimori1

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.


Figure 1
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.

 

Figure 2
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.

 

Figure 3
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.

 

Figure 4
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.

 

Figure 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).

 

Figure 6
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).

 

Figure 7
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).

 

Figure 8
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).

 

Figure 9
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).

 

Figure 10
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).

 

Figure 11
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).

 

Figure 12
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).

 

Figure 13
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).

 

Figure 14
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).

 

Figure 15
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).

 

Figure 16
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).

 

Figure 17
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.

 

Figure 18
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.

 

Figure 19
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).

 

Figure 20
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).

 

Figure 21
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.

 

Figure 22
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).

 

Figure 23
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).

 

Figure 24
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).

 

Figure 25
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.

 

Figure 26
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.

 

Figure 27
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).

 

Figure 28
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.

 

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 © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.