Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 Jan;15(1):29-34.
doi: 10.1007/s10140-007-0670-5. Epub 2007 Sep 18.

MDCT of thoraco-abdominal trauma: an evaluation of the success and limitations of primary interpretation using multiplanar reformatted images vs axial images

Affiliations
Comparative Study

MDCT of thoraco-abdominal trauma: an evaluation of the success and limitations of primary interpretation using multiplanar reformatted images vs axial images

Ashok Jayashankar et al. Emerg Radiol. 2008 Jan.

Abstract

To assess whether independent evaluation of coronal and sagittal reformatted images can replace axial images for primary interpretation of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) images in patients with thoraco-abdominal trauma. 111 (M/F 69:42) patients with acute chest or abdominal trauma underwent 16-channel MDCT. Coronal and sagittal multiplanar reformatted (MPR) images were generated from thin-section axial images. Two radiologists independently interpreted the MPR images first followed by axial images for both imaging findings as well as adequacy of image quality. Differences between independent reader review of axial and MPR images were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. There was no significant difference in soft tissue findings identified on MPR vs axial images for either reader, p = 0.91 and 0.34, respectively. However, both readers identified more skeletal findings on the MPR as compared to the axial images, p = 0.026 and 0.040, respectively. There was no significant difference between the readers in their interpretation of axial (soft tissue, p = 0.56; skeletal, p = 0.65) or MPR (soft tissue, p = 0.32; skeletal, p = 0.65) findings. More skeletal findings were identified during the isolated review of MPR as compared to axial images alone. However, the use of MPR images alone still resulted in an unacceptably high number of missed soft tissue and even skeletal findings. A combined approach where both data sets are simultaneously available is therefore preferred.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Dec;185(6):1500-8 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 2005 Jun;235(3):879-85 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 2006 Jan;238(1):135-42 - PubMed
    1. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004 Jul-Aug;28(4):572-80 - PubMed
    1. Radiat Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;21(1):23-7 - PubMed

MeSH terms