Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bankier, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Herold, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bankier, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Herold, C. J.

Radiology, Vol 196, 841-844, Copyright © 1995 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Automatic patient-instruction devices in thin-section CT of the thorax: impact on image quality

AA Bankier, D Fleischmann, K Dantendorfer, MN Wiesmayr, M Kontrus, P Hubsch and CJ Herold
Department of Radiology, University of Vienna, Austria.

PURPOSE: To determine what influence automatic patient-instruction (API) devices have on image quality of chest computed tomographic (CT) scans and whether the qualitative outcome justifies their routine use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thin-collimation CT scans of two age- and sex- matched groups of 64 patients each were evaluated prospectively for the presence of breathing artifacts and for concomitant deterioration of image quality. Breathing commands in group 1 were given with the API device and in group 2 with technologist-performed patient instruction. Cardiac motion artifacts were not evaluated. The frequency of scans repeated owing to breathing artifact was determined. RESULTS: Image quality was worse in group 1 compared with that of group 2. The percentage of scans repeated was higher with API (38%) than without API (16%). CONCLUSION: API devices cannot be recommended for thin-section CT of the thorax. The large number of scans that must be repeated leads to a considerable increase in patient irradiation, scanning time, and cost.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
A. A. Bankier, C. R. O'Donnell, and P. M. Boiselle
Quality Initiatives * Respiratory Instructions for CT Examinations of the Lungs: A Hands-on Guide
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2008; 28(4): 919 - 931.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1995 by the Radiological Society of North America.