PURPOSE: To determine the sizes of hilomediastinal lymph nodes on coronal and sagittal reconstruction computed tomographic images of subjects without known malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 560 lymph nodes of 246 consecutive patients who underwent multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) of the chest, then reconstructed coronal and sagittal images on a viewer and measured short-axis diameters of lymph nodes in each station according to the American Thoracic Society (ATS) map for axial, coronal, and sagittal images. RESULTS: On coronal images, short-axis diameters were significantly larger than on axial images in station #4R (P < 0.01). On sagittal images, short-axis diameters were significantly smaller than on axial images in stations #4L (P < 0.01), #10R (P < 0.001), and #10L (P < 0.05). On coronal and sagittal images, short-axis diameters were significantly smaller than on axial images in stations #11R (P < 0.001). In #7, diameters were significantly larger on coronal images than on axial and sagittal images (P < 0.001), and diameters were significantly smaller on sagittal images than on axial images (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In stations #4R, #4L, #7, #10R, #10L, and #11R, measurements of short-axis diameters of hilomediastinal lymph nodes differed on coronal and sagittal images. On coronal and sagittal images, evaluation of hilomediastinal lymph nodes requires unique size criteria for every station.
PURPOSE: To determine the sizes of hilomediastinal lymph nodes on coronal and sagittal reconstruction computed tomographic images of subjects without known malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 560 lymph nodes of 246 consecutive patients who underwent multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) of the chest, then reconstructed coronal and sagittal images on a viewer and measured short-axis diameters of lymph nodes in each station according to the American Thoracic Society (ATS) map for axial, coronal, and sagittal images. RESULTS: On coronal images, short-axis diameters were significantly larger than on axial images in station #4R (P < 0.01). On sagittal images, short-axis diameters were significantly smaller than on axial images in stations #4L (P < 0.01), #10R (P < 0.001), and #10L (P < 0.05). On coronal and sagittal images, short-axis diameters were significantly smaller than on axial images in stations #11R (P < 0.001). In #7, diameters were significantly larger on coronal images than on axial and sagittal images (P < 0.001), and diameters were significantly smaller on sagittal images than on axial images (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In stations #4R, #4L, #7, #10R, #10L, and #11R, measurements of short-axis diameters of hilomediastinal lymph nodes differed on coronal and sagittal images. On coronal and sagittal images, evaluation of hilomediastinal lymph nodes requires unique size criteria for every station.
Authors: B C Nguyen; W Stanford; B H Thompson; N P Rossi; K H Kernstine; J A Kern; R A Robinson; J K Amorosa; J F Mammone; E K Outwater Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: R M Pieterman; J W van Putten; J J Meuzelaar; E L Mooyaart; W Vaalburg; G H Koëter; V Fidler; J Pruim; H J Groen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thanos Sioris; Ritva Järvenpää; Pekka Kuukasjärvi; Heikki Helin; Seppo Saarelainen; Matti Tarkka Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: J F Vansteenkiste; S G Stroobants; P R De Leyn; P J Dupont; J Bogaert; A Maes; G J Deneffe; K L Nackaerts; J A Verschakelen; T E Lerut; L A Mortelmans; M G Demedts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 44.544