Advertisement

Impact of Real-Time Three-Dimensional Rendering of CT Data on Diagnostic Performance

  • G. P. Krestin
  • P. Hilfiker
  • P. Pelkonen
  • G. Verhoek
Conference paper

Abstract

Helical acquisition of computed tomography (CT) data enables the complete coverage of larger anatomic regions. Secondary reconstructions in additional planes out of these data volumes are therefore of better quality than reconstructions from sequentially acquired axial slices. The usefulness of such reconstructed images has been proved in several prospective and retrospective studies, particularly for planning surgical interventions and for evaluating post-traumatic alterations or in certain expansive diseases [1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 19]. However, all these studies compared only the added value of data postprocessing and did not consider the diagnostic effectiveness of the reconstructed images by using them instead of those acquired in the axial plane.

Keywords

Spiral Compute Tomography Helical Compute Tomography Hard Copy Compute Tomography Data Multiplanar Reconstruction 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alder ME, Deahl ST, Matteson SR (1995) Clinical usefulness of two-dimensional reformatted and three-dimensionally rendered computerized tomographic images: literature review and a survey of surgeons’ options. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:375–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fishman EK, Ney DR, Kawashima A, Scott WW jr, Robertson DD (1993) Effect of image display on the quality of multiplanar reconstruction of computed tomography data. Invest Radiol 29:146–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gandhe AJ, Hill DL, Studholm C, Hawkes DJ, Ruff CF, Cox TC, Gleeson MJ, Strong AJ (1994) Combined and three-dimensional rendered multimodal data for planning cranial base surgery: a prospective evaluation. Neurosurgery 35:463–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gregroy A, Lipczynski RT (1994) The three dimensional reconstruction and monitoring of facial surfaces. Med Eng Phys 16:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gur D, Good WF, Oliver JH, Thaete FL, Baron RL, Federle MP, Campbell WL, Rosenthal MS (1994) Sequential viewing of abdominal CT at varying rates. Radiology 191:119–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katz M, Konen E, Rozenman J, Szeinberg A, Itzckak Y (1995) Spiral CT and 3D image reconstruction of vascular rings and associated tracheobronchial anomalies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 19:564–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kauczcor HU, Wolcke B, Fischer B, Mildenberger P, Lorenz J, Thelen M (1996) Three-dimen- sional helical CT of the tracheobronchial tree. AJR 167:419–424Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhlman JE, Fishman EK, Ney DR, Magid D (1989) Two- and three-dimensional imaging of the painful shoulder. Orthop Rev 18:1201–1208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee KS, Yoon JH, Kim TK, Kim JS, Chung MP, Kwon OJ (1997) Evaluation of tracheobronchial disease with helical CT with multiplanar and three-dimensional reconstruction: correlation with bronchoscopy. Radiographics 17:555–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    LoCicero J III, Costello P, Campos CT, Francalancia N, Dushay KM, Silvestri RC, Zibrak JD (1996) Spiral CT with multiplanar and three-dimensional reconstructions accurately predicts tracheobronchial pathology. Ann Thorac Surg 62:811–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lohrum R, Becker G, Boesecke R, Werner T, Schlegel W, Lorenz WJ (1992) A medical workstation for the evaluation of alternative 3D radiotherapy treatment plans. Comput Med Imaging Graph 16:301–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McEnery KW, Wilson AJ, Murphy WA jr (1994) Comparison of spiral computed tomography versus conventional computed tomography multiplanar reconstructions of a fracture displacement phantom. Invest Radiol 29:665–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noh HM, Scott WW jr, Fishman EK (1996) Imaging of pelvic trauma: the role of CT with multiplanar and three-dimensional reconstruction. J South Orthop Assoc 5:111–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quint LE, Francis IR, Williams D, Bass JC, Shea MJ, Frayer DL, Monaghan HM, Deeb GM (1996) Evaluation of thoracic aortic disease with the use of helical CT and multiplanar reconstructions: comparison with surgical findings. Radiology 201:37–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seltzer SE, Judy PF, Adams DF, Jacobson FL, Stark P, Kikinis R, Swensson RG, Hooton S, Head B, Feldman U (1995) Spiral CT of the chest: comparison of cine and film-based viewing. Radiology 197:73–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutherland CJ, Bresina SJ, Gayou DE (1994) Use of general purpose mechanical computer assisted engineering software in orthopedic surgical planning: advantages and limitations. Comput Med Imaging Graph 18:435–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tarjan Z, Pozzi-Muzelli F, Frezza F, Pozzi-Muzzelli R (1996) Three dimensional reconstructions of carotid bifurcation from CT images: evaluation of different rendering methods. Eur Radiol 6:326–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tecce PM, Fishman EK (1995) Spiral CT with multiplanar reconstruction in the diagnosis of sternoclavicular osteomyelitis. Skeletal Radiol 24:275–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vannier MW, Hildebolt CF, Gilula LA, Piulgram TK, Mann F, Monsees BS, Murphy WA, Totty WG, Offutt CJ (1991) Calcaneal and pelvic fractures: diagnostic evaluation by three-dimen- sional computed tomography scans. J Digit Imaging 4:143–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. P. Krestin
  • P. Hilfiker
  • P. Pelkonen
  • G. Verhoek

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations