PURPOSE: Postprocessing offers the possibility of real-time creation of thickened slabs from a set of thin slices. This allows the interactive change from thick to thin slices for better evaluation of unclear lesions. As a result the clinical workflow of MSCT evaluation can be improved. However, to be able to apply this postprocessing software in the clinical routine, degradations in the image quality (compared to standard original reconstructed images) have to be avoided. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality of thickened slabs from MSCT chest examinations that have either been directly reconstructed from the raw data or have been retrospectively generated via postprocessing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chest MSCT examinations of 20 patients (mean age: 56 years) were performed on a 16-slice MSCT scanner (Mx8000IDT16, Philips, Best, Netherlands) using the following scan parameters: 120 kV, 94 effective mAs, 16 x 1.5 mm collimation, 512 x 512 matrix, field of view 371 x 371 mm, CTDIvol = 6.3 mGy, DLP = 210 mGyxcm). Slices with a thickness of 3 and 5 mm were generated for each examination both directly from the raw data and via postprocessing. Corresponding images from postprocessing and direct reconstruction (lung/soft tissue window) were evaluated by two radiologists with respect to 5 criteria on the basis of a five-point scale: organ structure, contour of small objects, contrast, image noise and artifacts. Differences between both data sets regarding image quality were assessed for each of the 5 criteria using a Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction. In addition, image noise was analyzed quantitatively in a region of interest in the aorta. RESULTS: For the lung and soft tissue window, both reviewers and all criteria, no differences in image quality were detected between the thickened slices obtained via direct reconstruction and the postprocessing method. In 96 % and 95 % of the cases images of the two reconstruction methods were graded identically for 3 mm and 5 mm slices. In the remaining 4 % and 5 %, the evaluations differed only by one point on the five-point scale. The median grade of the first reviewer was 1 and that of the second reviewer was 2. There were no differences in the quantitative analysis of image noise between both methods. CONCLUSION: The interactive creation of thickened slices is an effective tool for the evaluation of MSCT examinations. For the defined scan parameters in this study there were no differences in image quality between postprocessing methods (e. g. slab viewer) and direct image reconstruction.
PURPOSE: Postprocessing offers the possibility of real-time creation of thickened slabs from a set of thin slices. This allows the interactive change from thick to thin slices for better evaluation of unclear lesions. As a result the clinical workflow of MSCT evaluation can be improved. However, to be able to apply this postprocessing software in the clinical routine, degradations in the image quality (compared to standard original reconstructed images) have to be avoided. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality of thickened slabs from MSCT chest examinations that have either been directly reconstructed from the raw data or have been retrospectively generated via postprocessing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chest MSCT examinations of 20 patients (mean age: 56 years) were performed on a 16-slice MSCT scanner (Mx8000IDT16, Philips, Best, Netherlands) using the following scan parameters: 120 kV, 94 effective mAs, 16 x 1.5 mm collimation, 512 x 512 matrix, field of view 371 x 371 mm, CTDIvol = 6.3 mGy, DLP = 210 mGyxcm). Slices with a thickness of 3 and 5 mm were generated for each examination both directly from the raw data and via postprocessing. Corresponding images from postprocessing and direct reconstruction (lung/soft tissue window) were evaluated by two radiologists with respect to 5 criteria on the basis of a five-point scale: organ structure, contour of small objects, contrast, image noise and artifacts. Differences between both data sets regarding image quality were assessed for each of the 5 criteria using a Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction. In addition, image noise was analyzed quantitatively in a region of interest in the aorta. RESULTS: For the lung and soft tissue window, both reviewers and all criteria, no differences in image quality were detected between the thickened slices obtained via direct reconstruction and the postprocessing method. In 96 % and 95 % of the cases images of the two reconstruction methods were graded identically for 3 mm and 5 mm slices. In the remaining 4 % and 5 %, the evaluations differed only by one point on the five-point scale. The median grade of the first reviewer was 1 and that of the second reviewer was 2. There were no differences in the quantitative analysis of image noise between both methods. CONCLUSION: The interactive creation of thickened slices is an effective tool for the evaluation of MSCT examinations. For the defined scan parameters in this study there were no differences in image quality between postprocessing methods (e. g. slab viewer) and direct image reconstruction.