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
. 2010 Oct;115(7):1038-46.
doi: 10.1007/s11547-010-0532-1. Epub 2010 Feb 22.

Evaluation of pericardial sinuses and recesses with 2-, 4-, 16-, and 64-row multidetector CT

Affiliations

Evaluation of pericardial sinuses and recesses with 2-, 4-, 16-, and 64-row multidetector CT

C A Ozmen et al. Radiol Med. 2010 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe visualisation rate and appearance of all pericardial sinuses and recesses and to evaluate whether there is a significant difference between visualisation of these sinuses and recesses on 2-, 4-, 16- and 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).

Materials and methods: We retrospectively analysed 588 MDCT scans of the chest obtained with a protocol for pulmonary embolism.

Results: The visualisation rate of any pericardial recess was 85.2%. The rates on 2-, 4-, 16- and 64-slice MDCT were 74.7%, 90.6%, 90.3% and 88.7%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in visualisation rates of pericardial recesses between 2-slice MDCT and other MDCT systems (p<0.01). Age, and 4-, 16- and 64-slice MDCT versus 2-slice MDCT and the presence of pleural effusion appeared as significant predictors of the presence of any recess.

Conclusions: Visualisation rates of pericardial recesses are higher with 4-, 16- and 64-slice MDCT than with 2-slice MDCT. Therefore, radiologists need to be familiar with the different appearances of pericardial recesses on MDCT to avoid misdiagnosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986 May-Jun;10(3):421-3 - PubMed
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Oct;181(4):1101-8 - PubMed
    1. Invest Radiol. 1996 Oct;31(10):603-10 - PubMed
    1. Surg Radiol Anat. 1986;8(4):221-7 - PubMed
    1. Radiol Med. 2009 Sep;114(6):837-51 - PubMed