CT Colonography: Principles and Practice of Virtual ColonoscopyCT Colonography: Principles and Practice of Virtual Colonoscopy. By: Perry J. Pickhardt and David H. Kim. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 544 pp., 2010. $259 hardcover (ISBN: 978-1416061687)

2011 ◽  
Vol 197 (1) ◽  
pp. W199-W200
Author(s):  
Robert D. Stoffey
2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Röttgen ◽  
F. Fischbach ◽  
M. Plotkin ◽  
H. Herzog ◽  
T. Freund ◽  
...  

Purpose: To improve the sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) colonography in the detection of polyps by comparing the 3D reconstruction tool “colon dissection” and endoluminal view (virtual colonoscopy) with axial 2D reconstructions. Material and Methods: Forty‐eight patients (22 M, 26 F, mean age 57±21) were studied after intra‐anal air insufflation in the supine and prone positions using a 16‐slice helical CT (16×0.625 mm, pitch 1.7; detector rotation time 0.5 s; 160 mAs und 120 kV) and conventional colonoscopy. Two radiologists blinded to the results of the conventional colonoscopy analyzed the 3D reconstruction in virtual‐endoscopy mode, in colon‐dissection mode, and axial 2D slices. Results: Conventional colonoscopy revealed a total of 35 polyps in 15 patients; 33 polyps were disclosed by CT methods. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting colon polyps were 94% and 94%, respectively, when using the “colon dissection”, 89% and 94% when using “virtual endoscopy”, and 62% and 100% when using axial 2D reconstruction. Sensitivity in relation to the diameter of colon polyps with “colon dissection”, “virtual colonoscopy”, and axial 2D‐slices was: polyps with a diameter >5.0 mm, 100%, 100%, and 71%, respectively; polyps with a diameter of between 3 and 4.9 mm, 92%, 85%, and 46%; and polyps with a diameter <3 mm, 89%, 78%, and 56%. The difference between “virtual endoscopy” and “colon dissection” in diagnosing polyps up to 4.9 mm in diameter was statistically significant. Conclusion: 3D reconstruction software “colon dissection” improves sensitivity of CT colonography compared with the endoluminal view.


2004 ◽  
Vol 182 (3) ◽  
pp. 631-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikael Hellström ◽  
Maria H. Svensson ◽  
Anders Lasson

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ventzeslav Valev ◽  
Ge Wang ◽  
Michael W. Vannier

Radiology ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 228 (3) ◽  
pp. 878-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans M. Vos ◽  
Rogier E. van Gelder ◽  
Iwo W. O. Serlie ◽  
Jasper Florie ◽  
C. Yung Nio ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth G. McFarland ◽  
James A. Brink ◽  
Jay P. Heiken ◽  
Dennis M. Balfe ◽  
Daniel A. Hirselj ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassan Siddiki ◽  
J. G. Fletcher ◽  
Beth McFarland ◽  
Nora Dajani ◽  
Nicholas Orme ◽  
...  

Just over ten years ago, the first human trials of virtual colonoscopy, or computed tomography (CT) colonography, were performed. CT colonography (CTC), as it is now called, is a low radiation dose CT examination of the abdomen and pelvis following bowel purgation cleansing and insuflation (inflation) of the colon and rectum. High spatial resolution CT datasets of the abdomen and pelvis are obtained while the patient is lying in the prone and supine positions, with the entire procedure lasting about ten minutes. The resulting images are interactively reviewed on a dedicated computer workstation using 2D multiplanar images and 3D endoluminal displays of the colon. Over the past decade, rapid technological advancements in image acquisition, 3D display techniques, colonic insuflation, and stool tagging (i.e., labeling of stool with ingested radio-opaque contrast) have occurred, which have greatly improved the ability of CT colonography to detect colorectal polyps and cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document