These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results.
    Author: Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, Mattich J, Netzer P, Dinkel HP.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 May; 182(5):1151-8. PubMed ID: 15100110.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether a new virtual colon dissection 3D visualization technique for CT colonography has a shorter analysis time and better sensitivity for detection of colonic polyps than interpretation of axial CT images. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. CT colonography was performed in 22 patients using 4-MDCT followed by conventional colonoscopy on the same day. The CT colonography data sets were analyzed by virtual colon dissection, which virtually bisects and unfolds the colon along its longitudinal axis to inspect the inner colonic surface for polyps. The same CT data sets were independently evaluated using axial interpretation. All data sets were independently interpreted by two radiologists in a blinded manner. RESULTS: Conventional colonoscopy revealed 31 colonic lesions in 20 patients. Twenty two of the lesions were smaller than 10 mm; nine were 10 mm or larger. Two of the original 22 patients were excluded, one because of residual stool and fluid and the other because of an impassable stenosing rectal wall cancer. For virtual colon dissection, the per-lesion sensitivity was 42% for observer 1 and 68% for observer 2; for axial interpretation, the respective sensitivities were 48% and 61%. For polyps 10 mm or larger, the respective sensitivities were 67% and 89% for virtual colon dissection and 89% and 100% for axial interpretation. The average time for reconstruction and analysis of virtual colon dissection was 36.8 min versus 29.2 min for axial images. Virtual colon dissection was feasible in both the supine and the prone positions in 45.5% of colonic segments, in either the supine or the prone position in 24.5%, and in neither position in 30% of segments. CONCLUSION: Although virtual colon dissection may facilitate detection of colonic polyps in isolated cases, its detection rate is not superior to axial interpretation, which is mainly attributable to failed rendering of insufficiently distended colonic segments or regions with residual feces. Virtual colon dissection is also the more time-consuming of the two procedures. With further improvement of path-finding and image segmentation, however, virtual colon dissection has the potential to be a useful interpretation tool for CT colonography.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]