Multislice CT Scanning with the SOMATOM Volume Zoom

Author(s):  
Thomas H. Flohr ◽  
Klaus Klingenbeck-Regn ◽  
Bernd Ohnesorge ◽  
Stefan Schaller
Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
B. Meuris ◽  
H. De Praetere ◽  
W. Coudyzer ◽  
W. Flameng

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Douglas Kampondeni ◽  
Gretchen Lano Birbeck ◽  
Robert J. Oostveen ◽  
Colleen Hammond ◽  
Michael James Potchen

Brainstem pathology due to infections, infarcts and tumors are common in developing countries, but neuroimaging technology in these resource-poor settings is often limited to single slice, and occasionally spiral, CT. Unlike multislice CT and MRI, single slice and spiral CT are compromised by bone artifacts in the posterior fossa due to the dense petrous bones, often making imaging of the brainstem non-diagnostic. With appropriate head positioning, the petrous ridges can be avoided with 40˚ sagittal oblique scans parallel to either petrous ridge. We describe an alternative sagittal oblique scanning technique that significantly reduces brainstem CT artifacts thereby improving clarity of anatomy. With Inst­itutional Ethical approval, 13 adult patients were enrolled (5 males; 39%). All patients had routine axial brain CT and sagittal oblique scans with no lesions found. Images were read by 2 readers who gave a score for amount of artefact and clarity of structures in the posterior fossa. The mean artifact score was higher for routine axial images compared to sagittal oblique (2.92 vs. 1.23; P<0.0001). The mean anatomical certainty scores for the brainstem were significantly better in the sagittal oblique views compared to routine axial (1.23 vs. 2.77; P<0.0001). No difference was found between the two techniques with respect to the fourth ventricle or the cerebellum (axial vs. sag oblique: 1.15 vs. 1.27; P=0.37). When using single slice CT, the sagittal oblique scanning technique is valuable in improving clarity of anatomy in the brainstem if axial images are non-diagnostic due to bone artifacts.


2020 ◽  
pp. 4781-4806
Author(s):  
Andrew Davenport

An accurate history and careful examination will determine the sequence and spectrum of clinical investigations required to make a diagnosis or decide on prognosis or treatment for renal disease. Midstream urine (MSU) sample—this standard investigation requires consideration of (1) macroscopic appearance, (2) stick testing, and (3) microscopy. Quantification of proteinuria—this is important because the risk for progression of underlying kidney disease to endstage renal failure is related to the amount of protein in the urine. Low molecular weight proteinuria is caused by proximal tubular injury and can be detected with markers. Knowledge of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is of crucial importance in the management of patients, not only for detecting the presence of renal impairment, but also in the monitoring of all patients with or at risk of renal impairment, and in determining appropriate dosing of those drugs cleared by the kidney. Measurement of plasma creatinine remains the standard biochemical test used to assess renal function. The simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (sMDRD) formula is explained, along with a revised version (CKD-EPI). Investigations of tubular function, including the proximal tubule, distal tubule, and renal-induced electrolyte and acid–base imbalances are discussed in this chapter. Renal imaging covered in this chapter includes ultrasonography, ultrafast multislice CT scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine scanning, and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Invasive techniques including antegrade or retrograde ureteropyelography and angiography are discussed. A renal biopsy should be considered in any patient with disease affecting the kidney when the clinical information and other laboratory investigations have failed to establish a definitive diagnosis or prognosis, or when there is doubt as to the optimal therapy.


2004 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Mechlenburg ◽  
Jens Nyengaard ◽  
Lone Rømer ◽  
Kjeld Søballe

2005 ◽  
Vol 173 (4S) ◽  
pp. 412-412
Author(s):  
Ashutosh Tewari ◽  
Assaad El-Hakim ◽  
Peter N. Schlegel ◽  
Mani Menon ◽  
Deirdre M. Coll

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (16) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH MECHCATIE
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Hamiko ◽  
M Endlich ◽  
C Krämer ◽  
C Probst ◽  
A Welz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
RB Brüning ◽  
B Ertl-Wagner ◽  
M Keberle ◽  
P Herzog
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document