Brilliance 16 slice spiral ct

Whole lung scanning was performed from apex pulmonis to basis pulmonis with a Philips Brilliance 16-slice spiral CT (Philips Healthcare, DA Best, The Netherlands). The slice width and spacing were 5 mm, the pitch was 1.20, and the scanning time was 1.0 sec. The voltage was maintained at 120 kV, the constant at 80–160 mA, the mediastinal window was W450:L45, and the lung window was W1,000:L2,500. The vertical and coronal planes of the lesion were reconstructed spontaneously. CT scan with contrast was performed after the plain scan and the scan parameters were the same as with those of the plain scan. The contrast agent was iohexol, which was injected by a high-pressure injector at a rate of 1.5–3 ml/sec. The mean CT value of the margin and interior of the lesion was calculated. Children with poor compliance were orally administered with 3% chloral hydrate (1.5 ml/kg). Children requiring special care completed the examinations with the accompaniment of his/her parents'/guardians (10 ).

Computed tomography examinations were performed on a Philips Brilliance 16-slice spiral
CT (Philips Medical Systems). The scanning parameters are as follows: collimation width
0.625 × 16 mm, pitch 1.0, tube voltage 120 kV, tube current 130 to 200 mAs, thickness of 3
mm, and reconstruction layer thickness of 1 to 2 mm. Contrast agent was iopromide
injection 370 (iodine concentration 370 mg/mL). After routine scanning, 80 to 100 mL
contrast agent was injected at a velocity of 3 mL/s. Arterial and venous enhancement was
performed at 25 and 65 seconds after injection. The MTC nodules were hypodense solid
masses with rare necrosis, usually demonstrated coarse calcifications and metastasized to
lymph nodes in the neck and mediastinum. After injection of contrast agents, most MTC
nodules were slightly nonuniformly enhanced or not enhanced. All the preoperative images
were analyzed by 2 radiologists. Both of them had more than 10 years of experience and
were blinded to the patients’ clinical data, other imaging findings, and pathology results
at the time of the analysis. When the diagnosis of the 2 radiologists differed, the final
diagnosis was decided after discussion.