Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The effects of misinterpretation of an artefact on multidetector row CT scans in children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Artefacts reflect problems with radiographic technique rather than true pathology. These may be misinterpreted as pathology with serious consequences. An artefact caused such problems in one paediatric imaging department.

Objective

To determine the incidence, and consequences of misinterpretation, of a CT artefact in a paediatric imaging department.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of images and reports of paediatric CT scans over a set period with a known artefact was performed. Reports were correlated with reviewers’ evaluation of the presence of artefact and reviewed for correct identification of artefact, misinterpretation as pathology, and action taken as a result.

Results

A total of 74 CT scans had been performed over the study period and an artefact detected by reviewers on 32 (43%). Six (18.75%) of these were misinterpreted as pathology, of which three (9.4%) were reported as tuberculous granulomas, two (6.2%) as haemorrhages and one (3.1%) as an unknown hyperdensity. Two patients (6.2%) had subsequent MRI studies performed, and treatment for tuberculosis was continued in one patient (3.1%).

Conclusion

No initial report identified the artefact. One-fifth of the scans with the artefact were misinterpreted as pathology and half of these misinterpretations led to further action. Artefacts result in false diagnoses and unnecessary investigations; vigilance is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrett JF, Keat N (2004) Artefacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 24:1679–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cody DD, Stevens DM, Ginsberg LE (2005) Multi-detector-row CT artefacts that mimic disease. Radiology 236:756–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fleischmann D, Rubin GD, Paik DS et al (2000) Stair-step artefacts with single versus multiple detector-row helical CT. Radiology 216:185–196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. McCollough CH (2002) Optimization of multidetector array CT acquisition parameters for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 27:253–259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bahner ML, Reith W, Zuna I et al (1998) Spiral CT vs incremental CT: is spiral CT superior in imaging of the brain? Eur Radiol 8:416–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. van Straten M, Venema HW, Majoie CB et al (2006) Image quality of multisection CT of the brain: Thickly collimated sequential scanning versus thinly collimated spiral scanning with image combining. AJNR 28:421–427

    Google Scholar 

  7. Choi HS, Choi BW, Choe KO et al (2004) Pitfalls, artefacts and remedies in multi-detector-row CT coronary angiography. Radiographics 24:787–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Marie du Plessis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

du Plessis, AM., Theron, S. & Andronikou, S. The effects of misinterpretation of an artefact on multidetector row CT scans in children. Pediatr Radiol 39, 137–141 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-008-1052-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-008-1052-1

Keywords

Navigation