Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the image quality of reconstructed thin sections obtained from a 16-MDCT scanner with that of axial high-resolution CT scans of the same patient. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients referred for CT of the chest underwent 16-MDCT and, subsequently, axial high-resolution CT. The volumetric raw data from the MDCT scans were reconstructed into slices 2-mm thick using a high-spatial-frequency reconstruction algorithm. Two blinded reviewers independently rated the images from both methods for subjective image-quality criteria. The results were tested for statistical significance using Wilcoxon's signed rank test, and p values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. The effective dose for axial high-resolution CT and volumetric MDCT was calculated. RESULTS: Motion artifacts were significantly more common on high-resolution CT scans than on reconstructed thin-section images (p < 0.001). The two methods differed significantly in lung attenuation (p = 0.008), mainly because of the presence of ground-glass opacities. The assessment of ground-glass attenuation was superior on axial high-resolution CT. The effective doses were 3.8 mSv for MDCT and 0.9 mSv for high-resolution CT. CONCLUSION: Reconstructed high-resolution images generated from a single MDCT data acquisition are of comparable quality to images obtained using conventional axial high-resolution CT. However, contiguous MDCT is not recommended for diseases showing predominantly ground-glass patterns, because axial high-resolution CT delineates ground-glass attenuation significantly better.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Studler et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: