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

This Article Abstract Figures Only 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? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

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.

Received January 28, 2005; accepted after revision March 23, 2005.

 
Address correspondence to K. Takahashi (taka1019{at}asahikawa-med.ac.jp).

Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
OBJECTIVE. Delineation of the interlobar fissures on multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images is useful to assess masses at the fissures for invasion into adjacent lobes. We performed this study to determine the appropriate MDCT protocol to visualize the interlobar fissures on sagittal MPR images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. For the phantom studies, radiographic film was used to replicate the interlobar fissures. For the clinical studies, we obtained MDCT scans of 130 patients with normal interlobar fissures. Visualization of the interlobar fissures on sagittal MPR was assessed using the following scanning parameters: scan collimations of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 mm with helical pitches of 1 and 1.5 for the phantom studies; and scan collimations of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 mm with a helical pitch of 1.5 and a scan collimation of 2 mm with a helical pitch of 1 for the clinical studies.

RESULTS. To visualize fissures as a sharp line, a 0.5- or 1-mm collimation was required for the major fissure and 0.5 mm for the minor fissure in the phantom studies. In the clinical studies, 0.5-mm-collimation MPR images depicted interlobar fissures as a sharp line in all cases. Fissures on MPR images using 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimations appeared as a sharp line in 77.5-95.0%, 0-43.3%, and 0% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION. Volume data obtained using a 1-mm collimation are required to visualize all the interlobar fissures as a sharp line on sagittal MPR images except the minor fissure and superior portion of the right major fissure, for which a 0.5-mm collimation is required.

Keywords: chest • lung • lung cancer • MDCT • pleura • pulmonary nodules

Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Two-dimensional multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) is the most frequently used reconstruction technique for helical CT scans. The benefits of using MPR have been reported in the assessment of thoracic diseases, including central airway lesions [1, 2], central pulmonary embolism [3], mediastinal lymphadenopathy [4], and diaphragmatic rupture [5, 6]. Reports indicate that high-resolution MPR images obtained with a 0.5- or 1-mm collimation depict normal anatomy and lung disease in a manner similar to axial or direct coronal high-resolution CT images [7-9].

The interlobar fissure is an important landmark for assessing the location and distribution of pulmonary disease. In patients with lung tumors, assessment of tumor extension across the interlobar fissure is critical in staging the disease, assessing the feasibility of surgical resection, and deciding whether lobectomy or pneumonectomy will be required [10]. Quint et al. [10] reported poor sensitivities in detecting transfissural tumor extension on contiguous axial CT images obtained with a 10-mm slice thickness. However, with a collimation of less than 2 mm, the interlobar fissures appear as a hyperattenuating line [11, 12], and some investigators have indicated that the use of thin-section CT scans could improve accuracy in identifying tumor extension across the major fissure [10, 11, 13].

For identification of the interlobar fissures, we postulated that using sagittal images is more accurate than using axial images to assess the major fissures along their entire craniocaudal length. We believe the same hypothesis to be true for identification of the minor fissure because it lies perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the thorax. However, researchers have not previously reported, to our knowledge, the appropriate MDCT protocol with which to visualize the interlobar fissures on sagittal MPR images.

Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Phantom Studies
Initially, a phantom study was performed to assess the visibility of interlobar fissures on sagittal MPR images. To replicate the interlobar fissures, we used radiographic film (200 µm in thickness) tilted 30° to the z-axis to represent the major fissure and placed another film nearly perpendicular to the scanning z-axis to represent the minor fissure. The phantom images were obtained on a 4-MDCT scanner (Aquilion, Toshiba) using the following protocol: 0.5-mm collimation with a 0.5-mm reconstruction interval; 1-mm collimation with a 0.5-mm reconstruction interval; 2-mm collimation with a 1-mm reconstruction interval; and 3-mm collimation with a 1.5-mm reconstruction interval.

To evaluate the visibility of the major fissure, scans were obtained at pitches of 1 and 1.5, a 0.5-second gantry rotation, 120 kV and 50 mA, a high-frequency algorithm, a 30-cm field of view, and a 512 x 512 matrix. For assessment of the minor fissure, the same parameters were used except a 15-cm field of view and 256 x 256 matrix. Once scanning had been performed, sagittal MPR images with a 1.0-mm slice thickness were generated from the scan data. The MPR images were photographed separately on hard copies with a window width of 1,600 H and a window level of -600 H.

View larger version (45K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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).

Clinical Studies
The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was not required or obtained to review the CT studies.

To determine the appropriate MDCT scanning parameters with which to visualize normal interlobar fissures on sagittal MPR images, we performed a retrospective review of CT studies of 130 patients obtained for clinical reasons during the period from January 2003 to June 2004. We used a 4-MDCT scanner (Aquilion, Toshiba) and obtained sagittal MPR images of the interlobar fissures in five groups of subjects using different scan collimations and helical pitches: 0.5-mm collimation with a 0.5-mm reconstruction interval at a pitch of 1.5 in 20 patients, 1-mm collimation with a 0.5-mm reconstruction interval at a pitch of 1.5 in 20 patients, 2-mm collimation with a 1-mm reconstruction interval at a pitch of 1 in 30 patients, 2-mm collimation with a 1-mm reconstruction interval at a pitch of 1.5 in 30 patients, and 3-mm collimation with a 1.5-mm reconstruction interval at a pitch of 1.5 in 30 patients.

Images were obtained using 120 kV and 150 mAs, 0.5-second gantry rotation, 30-cm field of view, 512 x 512 matrix, and a high-frequency reconstruction algorithm. Sagittal MPR images with a 3-, 2-, and 1-mm collimation were obtained from clinically indicated standard chest CT studies and those with a 0.5-mm collimation, from patients in whom high-resolution CT was clinically indicated. We excluded patients with incomplete fissures; diffuse lung disease; focal lesions adjacent to the interlobar fissures; pleural effusions; pleural abnormalities; cardiomegaly; and thoracic deformity, including scoliosis and pectus excavatum. The patient population included 74 men and 56 women who ranged in age from 34 to 71 years (mean, 48 years). There was no significant difference in sex and age among the five groups with different scan collimations and helical pitches. We obtained bilateral sagittal MPR images of the interlobar fissures of 1-mm thickness with 10-mm intervals and photographed both on hard copies with a window width of 1,600 H and a window level of -600 H.

We assessed the visibility of the interlobar fissures on sagittal MPR images using the following criteria: sharp line, blurred line, and inadequate visualization. We judged the fissure to be a sharp line when it appeared similar to that on conventional axial images with a 1-mm collimation in 10 healthy subjects as a control group. We judged the fissure to be blurred when it appeared as a thick line with marginal blurring or when there was a stairstep artifact, and we judged the fissure to be inadequately visualized when it appeared as a hypo- or hyperattenuating band devoit of vascularity.

We reviewed sagittal MPR images at the midportion of the thorax on the right side and 10-15 mm lateral to the cardiac margin on the left. Because the angle of the major fissure along its longitudinal axis differs between levels above and below the hilum, we assessed its conspicuity at regions both superior and inferior to the hila. We also assessed the visibility of the right minor fissure. All images were independently reviewed by two pulmonary radiologists who were blinded to the collimation and pitch of the images. Interobserver variation of the score between the two reviewers was assessed using kappa statistics. Kappa values were defined as the following: 0-0.20, poor; 0.21-0.40, fair; 0.41-0.60, moderate; 0.61-0.80, good; and 0.81-1, excellent.

Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Phantom Studies
The Phantom major fissure was visualized as a thin line with no stairstep artifact on sagittal MPR images obtained using 0.5- and 1-mm collimation at pitches of 1 and 1.5; as a slightly thick line with no and mild stairstep artifact on MPR images using a 2-mm collimation at pitches of 1 and 1.5, respectively; and as a significantly thick line with mild and severe stairstep artifact on MPR images obtained using a 3-mm collimation at pitches of 1 and 1.5, respectively (Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, and 1H).

The phantom minor fissure was visualized as a thin line with no stairstep artifact on the sagittal MPR images using a 0.5-mm collimation at pitches of 1 and 1.5. It was visualized as a slightly thick line on MPR images obtained with a 1-mm collimation and as a significantly thick line on images obtained with 2- and 3-mm collimation. Stairstep artifact on MPR images obtained using a 1-, 2-, and 3-mm collimation was mild at pitch of 1 and severe at pitch of 1.5 (Figs. 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, and 2H).

Clinical Studies
Interobserver agreement in the quality criteria of the interlobar fissures on MPR images was excellent in all portions of the interlobar fissures: = 0.96 in the right superior major fissure, = 0.90 in the right inferior major fissure, = 0.88 in the left superior major fissure, = 0.90 in the left inferior fissure, and = 0.86 in the minor fissure.

The mean percentages of the two reviewers for each criterion—that is, sharp line, blurred line, and inadequate visualization—in the assessment of the right superior and inferior major fissures, the left superior and inferior major fissures, and the minor fissure are shown in Table 1.

Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
For visualization of the interlobar fissures on axial CT images, the most significant factors affecting their appearance and conspicuity are partial volume averaging from the adjacent lung tissue; the thinness of the fissures; and their anatomic course, which is oblique to axial scanning planes. To overcome problems with volume averaging and to visualize the interlobar fissures as a hyperattenuating line, a thin collimation (generally <2 mm) is required on conventional axial scanning [11, 12]. However, to assess the entire interlobar fissures, the use of thin-collimation scans results in an excessive number of a axial images. Alternatively, a 25° cranially tilted axial scan can provide the same benefit in visualization of the major fissure, which appears as a linear of bandlike density, and can do so even with a 5- to 10-mm collimation [13]. However, this method is generally impractical and undesirable for routine scanning.

View larger version (112K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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.

Recently, the authors of two studies reported that coronal MPR images obtained from helical scan data with a thin collimation (0.5-1 mm) and axial high-resolution CT images were comparable for the evaluation of lung parenchymal abnormalities [8, 9]. In both studies, the authors indicated that MPR images depict the features and distribution of parenchymal abnormalities as accurately as axial high-resolution CT images. Arakawa et al. [8] reported that MPR images provided additional information to that provided by axial high-resolution images in 22% of cases, especially for the presence and distribution of ground-glass opacities, intralobular reticular opacities, and bronchial dilatation. Remy-Jardin et al. [9] suggested that the significantly reduced numbers of images provide additional benefit as a diagnostic algorithm when using MPR. On the basis of these studies, we thought that sagittal MPR images obtained from thin-collimation volume data would be suitable for assessment of the interlobar fissures (Figs. 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 4A, 4B, and 4C).

View larger version (200K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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).

In clinical studies, a 0.5-mm-collimation scan revealed both the major and minor fissures as a sharp line in all cases. A 1-mm-collimation scan depicted fissures as a sharp line in more than 90% of cases except for the superior portion of the right major fissure and the minor fissure, for which only a sharp line was seen in 82.5% and 77.5% of the cases, respectively. This difference is thought to be due to the more horizontal orientation of these fissures, which results in significant partial volume averaging and stairstep artifact. MPR images obtained using 2- and 3-mm collimation were considered to be suboptimal for visualizing the fissures because of marginal blurring and frequent nonvisualization as a line, respectively.

Limitations in our data are the lack of clinical study of the diagnostic accuracy of sagittal MPR images for assessing abnormalities of the interlobar fissures, including transfissural tumor extension. However, we have found that clear visualization of the interlobar fissures on high-resolution MPR images is beneficial in the evaluation of adjacent lesions (Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B). Another clinical study is ongoing in an attempt to clarify the benefit of high-resolution MPR images.

View larger version (148K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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 this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   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.

In conclusion, 1-mm-collimation volume data are required to visualize all the interlobar fissures as a sharp line on sagittal MPR images except the minor fissure and the superior portion of the right major fissure, for which a 0.5-mm collimation is required.

References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Chooi WK, Matthews S, Bull MJ, Morcos SK. Multislice helical CT: the value of multiplanar image reconstruction in assessment of the bronchi and small airways disease. Br J Radiol 2003;76 : 536-540[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Quint LE, Whyte RI, Kazerooni EA, et al. Stenosis of the central airways: evaluation by using helical CT with multiplanar reconstructions. Radiology 1995;194 : 871-877[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Remy-Jardin M, Remy J, Cauvain O, Petyt L, Wannebroucq J, Beregi JP. Diagnosis of central pulmonary embolism with helical CT: role of two-dimensional multiplanar reformations. AJR1995; 165:1131 -1138[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Padhani A, Fishman EK, Heitmiller RF, Wang KP, Wheeler JH, Kuhlman JE. Multiplanar display of spiral CT data of the pulmonary hila in patients with lung cancer. Clin Imaging 1995;19 : 252-257[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Killeen KL, Mirvis SE, Shanmuganathan K. Helical CT of diaphragmatic rupture caused by blunt trauma. AJR1999; 173:1611 -1616[Abstract]
6. Brink JA, Heiken JP, Semenkovich J, Teefey SA, McClennan BL, Sagel SS. Abnormalities of the diaphragm and adjacent structures: findings on multiplanar spiral CT scans. AJR 1994;163 : 307-310[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Honda O, Johkoh T, Yamamoto S, et al. Comparison of quality of multiplanar reconstructions and direct coronal multidetector CT scans of the lung. AJR 2002;179 : 875-879[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Arakawa H, Sasaka K, Lu WM, Hirayanagi N, Nakajima Y. Comparison of axial high-resolution CT and thin-section multiplanar reformation (MPR) for diagnosis of diseases of the pulmonary parenchyma: preliminary study in 49 patients. J Thorac Imaging 2004;19 : 24-31[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Remy-Jardin MJ, Campistron P, Amara A, Mastora I, Delannoy V, Remy J. Workflow issue with multislice CT of the thorax: usefulness of multiplanar reformations in the diagnostic approach of infiltrative lung disease. (abstr) Radiology 2001;221 (P): 407
10. Quint LE, Glazer GM, Orringer MB. Central lung masses: prediction with CT of need for pneumonectomy versus lobectomy. Radiology 1987;165 : 735-738[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Glazer HS, Anderson DJ, DiCroce JJ, et al. Anatomy of the major fissure: evaluation with standard and thin-section CT. Radiology 1991;180 : 839-844[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Berkmen YM, Auh YH, Davis SD, Kazam E. Anatomy of the minor fissure: evaluation with thin-section CT. Radiology1989; 170:647 -651[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Sakai O, Takahashi K, Nakashima N, et al. CT visualization of the major pulmonary fissures: value of 25 degrees cranially tilted axial scans. AJR 1993; 161:523 -526[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Storto ML, Ciccotosto C, Guidotti A, Merlino B, Patea RL, Bonomo L. Neoplastic extension across pulmonary fissures: value of spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reformations. J Thorac Imaging 1998; 13:204 -210[Medline]
15. Remy-Jardin M, Remy J, Mayo JR, Muller NL. Acquisition, injection, and reconstruction techniques. In: Remy-Jardin M, Remy J, Mayo JR, Muller JR, eds. CT angiography of the chest. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:1 -14
16. Wang G, Vannier MW. Longitudinal resolution in volumetric X-ray computerized tomography: analytical comparison between conventional and helical computerized tomography. Med Phys1994; 21:429 -433[CrossRef][Medline]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Figures Only 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? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?