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 Stockberger, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Ambrosius, W. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stockberger, S. M., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Ambrosius, W. T.

Radiology, Vol 206, 631-636, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Spiral CT with ionic and nonionic contrast material: evaluation of patient motion and scan quality

SM Stockberger Jr, JA Hicklin, Y Liang, JL Wass and WT Ambrosius
Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis 46202-5253, USA.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of rapidly injected ionic or nonionic contrast material on patient motion and scan quality in spiral computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nine patients were prospectively, randomly chosen to receive ionic or nonionic contrast material. An acrylic rod was attached to the anterior abdomen with tape, which allowed an objective measurement of motion. Abdominal spiral CT was performed after intravenous injection of contrast material at a rate of 0.9 g of iodine per second. Scans were evaluated subjectively and objectively for motion and subjectively for quality. Complete data were available in 98 patients (47 in the ionic and 51 in the nonionic group). RESULTS: The acrylic rod moved an average of 0.44 mm per section in the nonionic group and 0.71 mm per section in the ionic group. Both subjective and objective measurements showed a statistically significant difference in patient motion. Use of nonionic contrast material resulted in less patient motion. Scan quality was better with nonionic contrast material. CONCLUSION: Less patient motion occurs and scan quality improves when spiral CT is performed with nonionic contrast material.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. M. Maher, P. F. Hahn, D. A. Gervais, B. Seoighe, J. B. Ravenscroft, and P. R. Mueller
Portable Abdominal CT: Analysis of Quality and Clinical Impact in More Than 100 Consecutive Cases
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2004; 183(3): 663 - 670.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. J. Siegel
Multiplanar and Three-dimensional Multi-Detector Row CT of Thoracic Vessels and Airways in the Pediatric Population
Radiology, December 1, 2003; 229(3): 641 - 650.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
O. Rouvière, D. Lyonnet, P. Berger, C. Pangaud, A. Gelet, and X. Martin
Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Use of Helical CT for Preoperative Assessment-Comparison with Intraarterial Angiography
Radiology, December 1, 1999; 213(3): 668 - 673.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1998 by the Radiological Society of North America.