Brief Article
Copyright ©2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 14, 2009; 15(46): 5827-5832
Published online Dec 14, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.5827
Table 1 Examination parameters
Native CTArterial phasePortal venous phase
Anode voltage (kV)120120120
Anode current (mAs)140170185
Detector collimation1.5 (slice: 6 mm)0.75 (slice: 3 mm)0.75 (slice: 3 mm)
Table feed (mm)241212
Reconstructed slice thickness (mm)62/11.3/3; 2.1/0.5
Delay (s)835
Table 2 Questionnaire put to the surgeon assessing the value of the three-dimensional image vs conventional CT images
Depiction of the tumor
How well can the tumor localization be assessed?1 = excellent; 2 = good; 3 = mediocre; 4 = bad; 5 = very bad
How well can vascular invasion be assessed?
How well can organ invasion be assessed?
How comfortable are you with the image?
How well does the imaging material match the operative situation?Completely; partially; not at all
How manageable was the 3D view in comparison with CT?Less complicated; equally complicated; more complicated
Was the operating strategy changed due to the images?Yes; no
Table 3 Three-dimensional reconstruction vs CT
PatientsTumor image
Tumor localization
Vascular invasion
Organ invasion
Feel-good score