Evaluation of image quality using 1:1 pitch and 1.5:1 pitch helical CT in children : a comparative study

The objective of this study was to compare the quality of 1 : 1 and 1.5 : 1 pitch helical contrast-enhanced thoracic and abdominal CT images in children who cannot cooperate for breath holding. This is a retrospective study of 33 contrast-enhanced CT examinations in 11 children of 0-4 years of age....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pediatric radiology 1996-12, Vol.26 (12), p.891-893
Main Authors: VADE, A, DEMOS, T. C, OLSON, M. C, SUBBAIAH, P, TURBIN, R. C, VICKERY, K, CORRIGAN, K
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Child, Preschool
Contrast Media
Humans
Infant
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Iohexol
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous. Technology
Radiation Dosage
Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry
Radiography, Abdominal
Radiography, Thoracic
Retrospective Studies
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The objective of this study was to compare the quality of 1 : 1 and 1.5 : 1 pitch helical contrast-enhanced thoracic and abdominal CT images in children who cannot cooperate for breath holding. This is a retrospective study of 33 contrast-enhanced CT examinations in 11 children of 0-4 years of age. All children had an initial CT study using 1 : 1 pitch helical scanning followed over the next 6-36 months by one to four CT examinations with 1.5 : 1 pitch. Radiation dose with the two techniques was measured with a pencil ionization chamber. The two techniques provided comparable overall image quality. There was 33 % less radiation dose with 1.5 : 1 pitch helical scanning. The 1.5 : 1 pitch helical CT provides comparable quality images and a smaller radiation dose than 1 : 1 pitch in examining children aged 0-4 years.
ISSN:0301-0449
1432-1998
DOI:10.1007/BF03178045