Helical CT in the Pediatric Chest

  • M. J. Siegel
Conference paper


Helical computed tomography (CT) has a number of advantages in pediatric patients [1–4]. First, the retrospective reconstruction capabilities afforded by helical CT can improve lesion detection without increasing radiation exposure. Second, the relatively shorter scanning time has the potential to eliminate or at least minimize motion artifacts, decrease the need for sedation, and optimize contrast enhancement. Third, the absence or reduction of motion artifacts allows high-quality two- and three-dimensional reconstructions.


Pulmonary Nodule Helical Compute Tomography Conventional Compute Tomography Table Speed Small Airway Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Frush DP, Siegel MJ, Bisset GS (1997) Challenges of pediatric spiral CT. Radio Graphics 17: 939–959Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegel MJ, Luker GD (1995) Pediatric applications of helical (helical) CT. Radiol Clin North Am 33:997–1022PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siegel MJ (1998) Pediatric helical techniques. In: Silverman P (ed) Helical (spiral) computed tomography: a practical approach to clinical practice. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia (in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    White KS (1996) Helical/helical CT scanning: a pediatric radiology perspective. Pediatr Radiol 26:5–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frush DP, Bisset GS III, Hall SC (1996) Pediatric sedation in radiology: the practice of safe sleep. AJR 167:1381–1387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaste SC, Young CW (1995) Safe use of power injectors with central and peripheral venous access devices for pediatric CT. Pediatr Radiol 26:499–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Remy-Jardin M, Remy J, Giraud F, Marquette CH (1993) Pulmonary nodules: detection with thick-section helical CT versus conventional CT. Radiology 187:513–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright AR, Collie DA, Williams JR, Hasemi-Malayeri B, Stevenson AJM, Turnbull CM (1996) Pulmonary nodules: effect on detection of helical CT pitch. Radiology 199:837–841PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brink JA, Heiken JP, Semenkovich J, Teefey SA, McClennan BL, Sagel SS (1994) Abnormalities of the diaphragm and adjacent structures; findings on multiplanar helical CT scans. AJR 163:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lucidarme O, Greneir P, Cocke E, Lenoir S, Aubert B, Beigelman C (1996) Bronchiectasis: comparative assessment with thin-section CT and helical CT. Radiology 200:673–679PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quint LE, Whyte RI, Kaserooni EA et al (1995) Stenosis of the central airways: evaluation by using helical CT with multiplanar reconstructions. Radiology 194:871–877PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Siegel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations