Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2010 | Review

Technical aspects of CT imaging of the spine

Author: Bernhard Tins

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 5-6/2010

Abstract

This review article discusses technical aspects of computed tomography (CT) imaging of the spine. Patient positioning, and its influence on image quality and movement artefact, is discussed. Particular emphasis is placed on the choice of scan parameters and their relation to image quality and radiation burden to the patient. Strategies to reduce radiation burden and artefact from metal implants are outlined. Data acquisition, processing, image display and steps to reduce artefact are reviewed. CT imaging of the spine is put into context with other imaging modalities for specific clinical indications or problems. This review aims to review underlying principles for image acquisition and to provide a rough guide for clinical problems without being prescriptive. Individual practice will always vary and reflect differences in local experience, technical provisions and clinical requirements.

McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26(2):503–512PubMedCrossRef

Biswas D, Bible JE, Bohan M et al (2009) Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(8):1882–1889PubMedCrossRef

Richards PJ, George J (2009) Diagnostic CT radiation and cancer induction. Skeletal Radiol 39(5):421–424CrossRef

Richards PJ, George J, Metelko M et al (2010) Spine computed tomography doses and cancer induction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(4):430–433CrossRef

McCollough CH, Christner JA, Kofler JM (2010) How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk? AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(4):890–896PubMedCrossRef

Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2010) Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting international commission on radiological protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(4):881–889PubMedCrossRef

Mulkens TH, Marchal P, Daineffe S et al (2007) Comparison of low-dose with standard-dose multidetector CT in cervical spine trauma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28(8):1444–1450PubMedCrossRef

Abul-Kasim K, Overgaard A, Maly P et al (2009) Low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) in the perioperative workup of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Radiol 19(3):610–618PubMedCrossRef

Abul-Kasim K, Gunnarsson M, Maly P et al (2008) Radiation dose optimization in CT planning of corrective scoliosis surgery. Neuroradiol J 21:374–382PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hauser CJ, Visvikis G, Hinrichs C et al (2003) Prospective validation of computed tomographic screening of the thoracolumbar spine in trauma. J Trauma 55(2):228–234, discussion 234–5PubMedCrossRef

11.

Link TM, Meier N, Rummeny EJ et al (1996) Artificial spine fractures: detection with helical and conventional CT. Radiology 198(2):515–519PubMedCrossRef

12.

Obenauer S, Alamo L, Herold T et al (2002) Imaging skeletal anatomy of injured cervical spine specimens: comparison of single-slice vs multi-slice helical CT. Eur Radiol 12(8):2107–2111PubMedCrossRef

13.

Phal PM, Riccelli LP, Wang P et al (2008) Fracture detection in the cervical spine with multidetector CT: 1-mm versus 3-mm axial images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29(8):1446–1449PubMedCrossRef

14.

Roos JE, Hilfiker P, Platz A et al (2004) MDCT in emergency radiology: is a standardized chest or abdominal protocol sufficient for evaluation of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma? AJR Am J Roentgenol 183(4):959–968PubMedCrossRef

15.

Wintermark M, Mouhsine E, Theumann N et al (2003) Thoracolumbar spine fractures in patients who have sustained severe trauma: depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 227(3):681–689PubMedCrossRef

16.

Douglas-Akinwande AC, Buckwalter KA, Rydberg J et al (2006) Multichannel CT: evaluating the spine in postoperative patients with orthopedic hardware. Radiographics 26(Suppl 1):S97–S110PubMedCrossRef

17.

Tins BJ, Lalam RK, Cassar-Pullicino VN et al (2009) Bone metastases. 2: Pelvis and appendicular skeleton. In: Davies AM, Sundaram M, James SL (eds) Imaging of bone tumors and tumor-like lesions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 346–365.

18.

Tins BJ, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Lalam RK (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of spinal infection. Top Magn Reson Imaging 18(3):213–222PubMedCrossRef

19.

Russell EJ, D'Angelo CM, Zimmerman RD et al (1984) Cervical disk herniation: CT demonstration after contrast enhancement. Radiology 152(3):703–712PubMedCrossRef

20.

Voelker JL, Mealey J Jr, Eskridge JM et al (1987) Metrizamide-enhanced computed tomography as an adjunct to metrizamide myelography in the evaluation of lumbar disc herniation and spondylosis. Neurosurgery 20(3):379–384PubMedCrossRef

21.

Yamazaki H, Doi K, Hattori Y et al (2007) Computerized tomography myelography with coronal and oblique coronal view for diagnosis of nerve root avulsion in brachial plexus injury. J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj 2:16PubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Ketonen L, Gyldensted C (1986) Lumbar disc disease evaluated by myelography and postmyelography spinal computed tomography. Neuroradiology 28(2):144–149PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kluner C, Kivelitz D, Rogalla P et al (2006) Percutaneous discography: comparison of low-dose CT, fluoroscopy and MRI in the diagnosis of lumbar disc disruption. Eur Spine J 15(5):620–626PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Adams JE (2009) Quantitative computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 71(3):415–424PubMedCrossRef

25.

Lang T (2010) Quantitative computed tomography. Radiol Clin N Am 48(3):589–600PubMedCrossRef

26.

Lenchik L, Shi R, Register TC et al (2004) Measurement of trabecular bone mineral density in the thoracic spine using cardiac gated quantitative computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28(1):134–139PubMedCrossRef

27.

Bauer JS, Henning TD, Mueller D et al (2007) Volumetric quantitative CT of the spine and hip derived from contrast-enhanced MDCT: conversion factors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188(5):1294–1301PubMedCrossRef

28.

Schmid G, Schmitz A, Borchardt D et al (2006) Effective dose of CT- and fluoroscopy-guided perineural/epidural injections of the lumbar spine: a comparative study. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 29(1):84–91CrossRef

29.

Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ et al (2000) Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics 20(3):699–712PubMedCrossRef

30.

Abul-Kasim K, Strombeck A, Ohlin A et al (2009) Reliability of low-radiation dose CT in the assessment of screw placement after posterior scoliosis surgery, evaluated with a new grading system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(9):941–948CrossRef

http://ctisus.com/

http://www.healthcare.philips.com/in/products/ct/

http://www.hitachi-medical.com.sg/products/ct_scanner.html

http://www.gehealthcare.com/euen/ct/

http://www.mdct.net

http://www.medical.siemens.com

http://www.toshiba-medical.co.uk/ct-systems.asp

Title: Technical aspects of CT imaging of the spine
Author: Bernhard Tins
Publication date: 01-11-2010
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 5-6/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-010-0047-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Technical aspects of CT imaging of the spine

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5-6/2010

Imaging of pancreas transplantation and its complications

Imaging with non-FDG PET tracers: outlook for current clinical applications

Pancreatic transplantation: surgical technique, normal radiological appearances and complications

Uncharted waters: rare and unclassified cardiomyopathies characterized on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

Imaging of endometrial and cervical cancer

Imaging for suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy—what about the fetal dose? A comprehensive review of the literature