Flat-panel-detector-based volumetric CT: performance evaluation of imaging for skeletal structures of small animals in comparison to multislice CT

2007 | journal article. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Flat-panel-detector-based volumetric CT: performance evaluation of imaging for skeletal structures of small animals in comparison to multislice CT​
Obenauer, S.; Dullin, C.; Alves, F. ; Missbach-Guentner, J.; Grabbe, E. & Heuser, M.​ (2007) 
Clinical Imaging31(1) pp. 18​-22​.​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2006.09.029 

Documents & Media

License

GRO License GRO License

Details

Authors
Obenauer, Silvia; Dullin, Christian; Alves, Frauke ; Missbach-Guentner, Jeannine; Grabbe, Eckhardt; Heuser, Markus
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the image performance of silicon-based flat-panel-detector-based volumetric computed tomography (fpVCT) to multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) for the visualization and detail delectability of skeletal structures in rodents of different development stages. Materials and Methods: Rodents of different development stages were imaged with fpVCT (GE prototype with circular gantry with two 1024 x 1024, 200-mu m pixel size, amorphous silicon/Cesium lodid (Csl) flat-panel detector) and eightslice MSCT (LightSpeed Ultra). Imaging parameters (80 kVp, 100 mA) and the position of the rodents were identical in both techniques. Image quality, detail delectability, and contour of skeletal structures were judged by two observers in consensus using a 4-point scale (1=unsatisfactory... 4=good). Findings were displayed and evaluated in axial slices, multiplanar reconstructions (MPR), maximum intensity projections (MIP) and volume rendering technique (VRT) in both modalities. Mean and standard of error of mean were calculated. Results: In axial slices, visualization and detail delectability of very subtle skeletal structures, e.g., the basis of the skull was better in fpVCT than in MSCT (4 vs. 2 points). The MPRs of fpVCT showed less artifacts and more details than those of the MSCT. The MIPs and VRTs of the fpVCT demonstrated best image quality in all rodents of different development stages, whereas MSCT showed significant artifacts. Conclusion: fpVCT outperformed MSCT in imaging of small rodents. Due to the truly isotropic volume data set with high spatial resolution, fpVCT is a powerful tool in evaluating detailed skeletal structures. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Issue Date
2007
Status
published
Publisher
Elsevier Science Inc
Journal
Clinical Imaging 
ISSN
0899-7071

Reference

Citations


Social Media