American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 170, 149-152, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Imaging of the liver with helical CT: a survey of scanning techniques

PM Silverman, L Kohan, I Ducic, S Javadi, C Meyer, N Sharma, C Cooper and RK Zeman
Department of Radiology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey of the members of the Society of Computed Body Tomography/Magnetic Resonance to assess current techniques in liver imaging using helical CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey, which was designed to update earlier surveys from 1987 and 1993, included a questionnaire distributed to 77 members of the Society of Computed Body Tomography/Magnetic Resonance. RESULTS: Forty-nine members responded, representing 28 institutions. In 1993, 19% (5/26) of institutions used helical scanners, compared with 82% (23/28) in 1996. The group of institutions with helical CT served as the focus of this survey. In 1993, 58% of institutions used 1-cm collimation: in 1996, 78% (18/23) used thinner, 7- to 8-mm collimation. In 1987, 41% used power injectors compared with 85% in 1993 and 100% in 1996. In 1996, monophasic injections were used by 96% (22/23) of institutions. In 1993, most institutions used a contrast material injection rate of 1.5- 2.0 ml/sec; in 1996, most used a 2.5-3.0 ml/sec injection rate. In 1993, 96% of institutions used 125-150 ml of contrast material; in 1996, 57% (13/23) of institutions used 125-150 ml and 30% of institutions used less than 125 ml of contrast material. A delay time of 21-45 see was used by 83% of institutions in 1993, whereas in 1996, 83% (19/23) of institutions used a longer delay time of 50-80 sec. In 1996, 13% of institutions used an individual scan delay technology and all institutions performed multiphasic scanning of hypervascular lesions. CONCLUSION: The availability of helical CT has changed radiologists' approach to liver imaging. The greatest effects of which are a more widespread use of power injectors, longer delay times, thinner collimation, increased contrast material injection rates, decreased contrast material volumes, and multiphasic scanning.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. T. Schindera, R. C. Nelson, D. M. DeLong, T. A. Jaffe, E. M. Merkle, E. K. Paulson, and J. Thomas Multi-Detector Row CT of the Small Bowel: Peak Enhancement Temporal Window--Initial Experience Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 438 - 444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Hollingsworth, D. P. Frush, M. Cross, and J. Lucaya Helical CT of the Body: A Survey of Techniques Used for Pediatric Patients Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 401 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Frush, L. F. Donnelly, and G. S. Bisset III Effect of Scan Delay on Hepatic Enhancement for Pediatric Abdominal Multislice Helical CT Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2001; 176(6): 1559 - 1561. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Paterson, D. P. Frush, and L. F. Donnelly Helical CT of the Body: Are Settings Adjusted for Pediatric Patients? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2001; 176(2): 297 - 301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. O'Malley, E. Halpern, P. R. Mueller, and G. S. Gazelle Helical CT Protocols for the Abdomen and Pelvis: A Survey Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2000; 175(1): 109 - 113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. Birnbaum, R. C. Nelson, J. L. Chezmar, and S. N. Glick Extravasation Detection Accessory: Clinical Evaluation in 500 Patients Radiology, August 1, 1999; 212(2): 431 - 438. [Abstract] [Full Text]