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


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Brink, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, E. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brink, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, E. G.
(Radiology. 2000;214:575-578.)
© RSNA, 2000

Technical Developments

Optimal Section Spacing in Single-Detector Helical CT1

James A. Brink, MD, Ge Wang, PhD and Elizabeth G. McFarland, MD

1 From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, 2-332 SP, New Haven, CT 06520 (J.A.B.); the Department of Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City (G.W.); and the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St Louis, Mo (E.G.M.). Received February 1, 1999; revision requested April 5; revision received May 5; accepted August 30. Address reprint requests to J.A.B. (e-mail: james.brink@yale.edu).

To define the section spacing that maximizes longitudinal resolution without needless section overlap, the optimal percentage of overlap was computed theoretically and expressed as a constant relative to the effective section thickness. For imaging applications that require maximal longitudinal resolution, single-detector helical computed tomographic images should be reconstructed with at least 60% overlap relative to the effective section thickness.

Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), image processing • Computed tomography (CT), image quality • Computed tomography (CT), physics • Computed tomography (CT), spiral technology




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. A. Gavrielides, L. M. Kinnard, K. J. Myers, and N. Petrick
Noncalcified Lung Nodules: Volumetric Assessment with Thoracic CT
Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 26 - 37.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. Macari and E. J. Bini
CT Colonography: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?
Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 819 - 833.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. M. Goo, T. Tongdee, R. Tongdee, K. Yeo, C. F. Hildebolt, and K. T. Bae
Volumetric Measurement of Synthetic Lung Nodules with Multi-Detector Row CT: Effect of Various Image Reconstruction Parameters and Segmentation Thresholds on Measurement Accuracy
Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 850 - 856.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
K. Wong, E. K. Paulson, and R. C. Nelson
Breath-hold Three-dimensional CT of the Liver with Multi-Detector Row Helical CT
Radiology, April 1, 2001; 219(1): 75 - 79.
[Abstract] [Full Text]