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: High-pitch dual-source paranasal sinus CT in agitated patients with maxillofacial trauma: analysis of image quality, motion artifacts, and dose aspects.
    Author: Frellesen C, Wichmann JL, Tischendorf P, Scholtz JE, Beeres M, Vogl TJ, Bauer RW.
    Journal: Acta Radiol; 2018 Aug; 59(8):909-916. PubMed ID: 29105487.
    Abstract:
    Background Image quality benefits from high-pitch scanning in agitated patients by reducing acquisition time. Purpose To compare image quality and exposure parameters in patients with maxillofacial trauma on second- and third-generation dual-source computed tomography (DSCT). Material and Methods Four groups were compared. Group 1 was examined on second-generation DSCT (120 kV/50 mAs, pitch 3.0). The other three groups were examined on third-generation DSCT. Group 2 was scanned with 120 kV/50 mAs, pitch 2.2. Automated exposure control (AEC) was used in group 3 and group 4 with pitch factors of 2.2 and 3.0, respectively. Images of third-generation DSCT were reconstructed with iterative reconstruction (IR), of second-generation DSCT with filtered back-projection. CTDIvol, acquisition time, and image quality were compared. Results Thirty patients were included in each group. Average CTDIvol (2.76 ± 0.00 mGy, 2.66 ± 0.00 mGy, 0.74 ± 0.23 mGy, and 0.75 ± 0.17 mGy) was significantly lower on third-generation DSCT with AEC ( P < 0.001). Subjective image quality was rated worst in group 4 due to strong high-pitch artifacts, while in the remaining three groups it was rated good or very good with good inter-observer agreement (k > 0.64). Average acquisition time was significantly shorter with third-generation DSCT (0.47 s, 0.36 s, 0.38 s, 0.30 s; P < 0.001). Conclusion Third-generation DSCT yields faster acquisition times and substantial dose reduction with AEC. A pitch of 2.2 should be preferred, as it results in fewer artifacts. If AEC is used, latest IR ensures that diagnostic image quality is guaranteed.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]