CT times

"CT" could mean a few different things - could you clarify what you're asking about?
Asking for Preferences

What do you mean by 'CT times'?

"CT" could mean a few different things - could you clarify what you're asking about?Sorry, that clarification got interrupted. Could you tell me what you mean by "CT times"? For example:
  1. CT scan timing/protocols - things like contrast phase timing (arterial, venous, delayed), scan duration, or when contrast should be administered relative to injection
  2. Central Time (CT) - the current time in the US Central time zone
  3. Something else entirely (please specify)

1

Reading File
Finding Sources
Finding Sources
Reading File
Reading File
Searching the Web

CT scan contrast phase timing protocol arterial portal venous delayed seconds

CT Contrast Phase Timing

Contrast-enhanced CT relies on precise timing after IV contrast injection to capture the vascular/parenchymal phase that best answers the clinical question. Timing is either fixed (empirical delay) or determined by bolus tracking/timing bolus, and it varies by body region and injection rate.

Standard phases (from contrast injection start)

PhaseTypical timingWhat it shows
Non-contrast (baseline)0 sBaseline density, calcifications, hemorrhage, stones
Early arterial phase~15-20 s (or 10-15 s post bolus-track trigger)Pure arterial anatomy, CT angiography, active bleeding/extravasation
Late arterial phase (a.k.a. "arterial phase" or "early portal venous phase")~30-40 s (25-45 s window); with bolus tracking, 15-20 s after triggerHypervascular tumors (HCC, neuroendocrine tumors, pancreatic adenocarcinoma conspicuity), pancreatic parenchymal phase
Portal venous phase~60-80 s (commonly quoted 70-80 s)General abdominal survey - best combined solid organ, bowel wall, and vascular enhancement; detects hypovascular liver metastases; most "routine" abdominal CTs are done here
Nephrographic/nephrogenic phase~90-120 sRenal parenchymal enhancement, renal mass characterization
Delayed/equilibrium phase~3-5 min (up to 10 min)Washout characterization of HCC, hemangiomas, cholangiocarcinoma, delayed excretory renal phase, active contrast extravasation pooling
Excretory (urographic) phase~5-15 minContrast in collecting system/ureters for CT urography
As the Grainger & Allison textbook in the library notes for liver imaging specifically:
"the minimum requirement for liver imaging is typically a relatively late arterial phase (e.g. centred 18 s post contrast medium arrival in the abdominal aorta) and a portal venous phase" - Grainger & Allison's Diagnostic Radiology, p. 621 (approx.)
Delayed imaging is added selectively for lesions like hemangiomas or cholangiocarcinoma, which show progressive/centripetal fill-in.

Region-specific notes

  • Liver/HCC protocol: non-contrast -> late arterial (~35 s) -> portal venous (~75-80 s) -> sometimes delayed (~5 min), since HCC's classic signature is arterial hyperenhancement with washout on portal/delayed phases.
  • Pancreas protocol: late arterial/pancreatic phase (~35-40 s) for tumor detection, plus portal venous phase (~65-70 s) for staging/vascular involvement.
  • Renal mass/stone protocol: non-contrast is essential (stones, baseline density), followed by nephrographic (~90-120 s) and sometimes delayed excretory phase for collecting-system evaluation.
  • CT angiography (PE, aortic dissection, trauma): bolus-tracked arterial timing (trigger threshold in the target vessel, typically 100-150 HU), scan starts 4-6 s after trigger - much earlier than routine arterial phase, since the goal is peak vessel opacification, not parenchymal enhancement.
  • 4D CT (parathyroid): precontrast -> arterial phase -> delay phase (60-80 s post injection), exploiting parathyroid tissue's rapid arterial uptake and rapid washout versus thyroid tissue - Sabiston Textbook of Surgery, ch. 74.

Practical determinants of timing

  • Bolus tracking (region-of-interest placed in aorta/vessel, scan triggers automatically at a set HU threshold) is now standard for arterial-phase precision, since the arterial window is brief and mistiming can render a study non-diagnostic for hypervascular lesion detection.
  • Injection rate (typically 3-5 mL/s) and contrast volume/concentration shift these windows - faster injection reaches peak arterial enhancement sooner.
  • Scanner speed (multi-slice/detector count) affects when you start the acquisition relative to the target phase, since a fast scanner covering the whole liver in a few seconds can start slightly later than a slower scanner needing more acquisition time to still center the acquisition on the target phase.
If you had a specific protocol in mind (e.g., PE study, liver mass characterization, renal colic, trauma pan-scan, or CT urography), let me know and I can go deeper into that specific timing scheme.

CT contrast calculation

Finding Sources
Finding Sources
Searching the Web

CT contrast volume dose calculation formula mL/kg iodine delivery rate injection rate

CT Contrast Dose/Volume Calculation

There are three linked calculations in a contrast injection protocol: volume, flow rate, and iodine delivery rate. Here is how each is derived.

1. Weight-based volume (most common bedside method)

Simple weight-tiered dosing (typical CT body protocols):
Patient weightContrast volume
<75 kg100 mL
75-90 kg120 mL
>90 kg150 mL
For lesion characterization (e.g. liver mass, pancreatic carcinoma) many protocols default to the maximum (150 mL) regardless of weight to maximize enhancement.
mL/kg formula: Volume = 1-2 mL/kg (bodyweight), capped around 150 mL total. This is a rough surrogate for iodine dosing.

2. Iodine-dose-based calculation (more physiologic, adjusts for contrast concentration)

The more rigorous approach targets a fixed iodine load per kilogram, independent of which concentration of contrast you stock:
Total iodine dose (g) = target load (gI/kg) x weight (kg)
Volume (mL) = Total iodine dose (mg) / concentration (mgI/mL)
Commonly cited targets: ~0.4-0.5 gI/kg (i.e., ~400-450 mg iodine/kg).
Example: 70 kg patient, target 0.45 gI/kg, using 370 mgI/mL contrast:
  • Total iodine needed = 0.45 x 70 = 31.5 gI = 31,500 mg
  • Volume = 31,500 / 370 = ~85 mL
This is why higher-concentration contrast (370-400 mgI/mL) allows a smaller volume for the same iodine dose compared to 300 mgI/mL contrast - concentration and volume trade off to keep total iodine constant.

3. Flow rate and injection duration

Once volume is set, flow rate and duration are linked by:
Volume (mL) = Flow rate (mL/s) x Duration (s)
Typical flow rates: 3-5 mL/s for routine abdominal/chest CT, up to 5-6 mL/s for CT angiography or arterial-phase liver/pancreas studies (requires an 18-20G IV, since higher rates risk extravasation through smaller catheters). Example: 100 mL at 4 mL/s = 25 s injection.

4. Iodine Delivery Rate (IDR) - governs arterial enhancement peak

IDR (gI/s) = concentration (mgI/mL) x flow rate (mL/s) / 1000
IDR (not just volume) determines peak aortic/arterial enhancement - this is why arterial-phase protocols (CTA, HCC, pancreatic protocol) push both high concentration and high flow rate simultaneously. Typical target IDR for good arterial enhancement is roughly 1.2-1.7 gI/s.

5. Adjustments and safety caps

  • Renal function: Contrast volume/iodine dose is capped or reduced in patients with reduced eGFR to lower contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN/PC-AKI) risk; many institutions cap total iodinated load or require isotonic saline pre-hydration below an eGFR threshold (commonly <30-45 mL/min/1.73m²).
  • Cardiac output/heart rate: In CT angiography protocols (e.g. cardiac CT), injected volume is adjusted upward for higher heart rates (contrast transits faster) - e.g. +10-30 mL correction for heart rates above 65 bpm in some validated formulas (iCalc-type models).
  • Body surface area (BSA) is sometimes used instead of weight alone for more individualized dosing (e.g., ~45 mL/m² as a baseline, per Yanaga's model), particularly for cardiac/CTA protocols.
  • Saline flush (30-40 mL at the same flow rate) is added after the contrast bolus to push the trailing contrast column out of peripheral veins into central circulation, improving enhancement efficiency and reducing wasted contrast.

Worked example

70 kg patient, routine abdomen/pelvis CT, 350 mgI/mL contrast, weight-tiered protocol:
  • Volume = 100 mL (weight <75 kg)
  • Flow rate = 3-4 mL/s -> injection time ~25-33 s
  • Total iodine dose = 100 mL x 350 mg/mL = 35 g iodine
  • IDR at 3.5 mL/s = 350 x 3.5/1000 = 1.23 gI/s (adequate for portal venous phase; would push flow rate to 5 mL/s for arterial-phase/HCC protocol)
If you want, I can build a quick calculator (spreadsheet) that takes weight, target gI/kg, contrast concentration, and desired flow rate, and outputs volume, injection time, and IDR automatically - useful if you're doing this repeatedly for different protocols.

MRI mrcp planing

Finding Sources
Finding Sources
Searching the Web

MRCP sequence planning protocol slice positioning coronal oblique technique

MRCP Planning (Sequence Positioning & Protocol)

MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography) uses heavily T2-weighted sequences to produce a "static" cholangiogram-like image of bile-filled and fluid-filled structures (bile ducts, gallbladder, pancreatic duct), without contrast injection - fluid is bright, everything else is suppressed. Planning refers to how the technologist positions the imaging slabs/slices relative to the biliary anatomy.

Standard scan sequence order

  1. Three-plane localizer to establish reference anatomy.
  2. Axial T2 HASTE/TRUFISP (fat-sat), respiratory-triggered or breath-hold through the liver and pancreas - this is the key localizer image used to identify the course of the common bile duct (CBD) for planning the oblique MRCP slabs.
  3. Axial T1 gradient echo, in/out-of-phase with fat suppression - for parenchymal (liver/pancreas) lesion characterization.
  4. Coronal T2 HASTE/TRUFISP thin slices covering the whole liver (anterior abdominal wall to paraspinal muscles).
  5. Coronal oblique thick-slab MRCP (single-slice, "projection" MRCP) - the signature MRCP image.
  6. Coronal oblique thin-slice 3D MRCP (SPACE/FRFSE-based, respiratory-gated) for a true source-image dataset that can be reconstructed/MIP'd.

Planning the coronal oblique thick-slab MRCP (the key step)

  • Plan on the axial T2 HASTE/TRUFISP image that clearly shows the CBD in cross-section.
  • Position the thick slab (typically 40 mm) across the CBD, then rotate:
    • RAO (right anterior oblique), rotate ~20-30° counterclockwise to include both the CBD and the pancreatic duct in the same slab (this is the "classic" MRCP projection).
    • LAO (left anterior oblique), rotate ~20-30° clockwise to include the CBD and gallbladder together.
  • Verify the slab position in the other two planes (sagittal/coronal) before acquiring, adjusting the sagittal angle so it runs horizontally through the duct.
  • Use phase oversampling (~50%) on the coronal obliques to prevent wrap-around artifact from the arms/lateral abdominal wall.
  • Apply fat saturation if the patient's breathing pattern is irregular (switch to a multi-NEX free-breathing fat-sat technique instead of respiratory triggering).

Typical parameters (single-slice thick-slab T2 HASTE MRCP)

ParameterTypical value
TR3000-4000 ms (some protocols use as low as 1000-1500 for HASTE variants)
TE~100-110 ms (long TE to suppress background, keep only fluid bright)
Flip angle~150°
Slice thickness40 mm single thick slab (projection MRCP) or 3-5 mm for thin-slice/3D
Matrix320 x 320
FOV400-450 mm
Phase directionA>P (axial) or R>L (coronal oblique)
Oversampling50%
NEX1

3D MRCP (thin-slice, respiratory-navigated)

  • Planned as a coronal oblique block over the biliary tree, typically 6 mm slice thickness with 1 mm gap, 32-38 slices, covering from the hepatic dome down through the kidneys/pancreatic head-body-tail.
  • Uses respiratory navigator/triggering (not breath-hold) since acquisition time is longer, giving higher resolution source images that can be post-processed into MIP reconstructions from any angle - this is the dataset surgeons/gastroenterologists actually review for stone burden, stricture length, and ductal anatomy variants.
  • Patient positioned supine, feet-first, abdomen at isocenter; arms up if possible to reduce fold-over artifact on coronal sequences.

Clinical relevance of MRCP planning quality

Because MRCP is non-invasive and requires no contrast or ionizing radiation, many surgeons now consider a well-planned MRCP sufficient for pre-operative biliary mapping (choledocholithiasis, biliary strictures, anatomic variants before cholecystectomy or hepatobiliary surgery), and it assists treatment planning in cholangiocarcinoma staging - Maingot's Abdominal Operations, p. (Diagnosis section); Yamada's Textbook of Gastroenterology.
Practical pitfalls that come from poor planning: slab rotated at the wrong angle misses either the pancreatic duct or gallbladder; motion/breathing artifact if respiratory triggering isn't matched to the patient's actual breathing pattern; and insufficient phase oversampling causing wrap artifact to obscure the CBD.
If you want, I can also cover the fasting/prep requirements (patients are typically fasted 4-6 hours to reduce gastric fluid signal and gallbladder contraction issues) or the differences between 2D projection MRCP vs 3D MRCP in more depth.

With image

Searching Images

MRCP magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography image showing bile duct pancreatic duct

This diagnostic image is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showing the biliary and pancreatic ductal systems. The primary finding is pancreas divisum, a congenital anatomical variant where the dorsal and ventral pancreatic ducts fail to fuse. The image demonstrates a prominent, slightly dilated dorsal pancreatic duct that crosses over the common bile duct to drain into the minor papilla. A focal narrowing or stenosis is visible at the level of the minor papilla. In contrast, the ventral pancreatic duct appears smaller and normal in morphology, draining separately into the major papilla without any communication with the dorsal duct. The gallbladder and common bile duct are also visualized, with the latter showing mild dilatation. This MRCP finding is clinically significant for diagnosing pancreas divisum, which can be associated with recurrent pancreatitis or obstructive symptoms if drainage through the minor papilla is impaired.

This diagnostic image is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showing the biliary and pancreatic ductal systems. The primary finding is pancreas divisum, a congenital anatomical variant where the dorsal and ventral pancreatic ducts fail to fuse. The image demonstrates a prominent, slightly dilated dorsal pancreatic duct that crosses over the common bile duct to drain into the minor papilla. A focal narrowing or stenosis is visible at the level of the minor papilla. In contrast, the ventral pancreatic duct appears smaller and normal in morphology, draining separately into the major papilla without any communication with the dorsal duct. The gallbladder and common bile duct are also visualized, with the latter showing mild dilatation. This MRCP finding is clinically significant for diagnosing pancreas divisum, which can be associated with recurrent pancreatitis or obstructive symptoms if drainage through the minor papilla is impaired.

This diagnostic image is a 3D reconstruction from Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showing the biliary and pancreatic duct systems. The gallbladder is visualized as a distended, lobulated sac-like structure connected to the biliary tree. The intrahepatic bile ducts appear as a branching network draining into the common bile duct. A significant anatomical variant is demonstrated where the main pancreatic duct forms an annular configuration, encircling the projected location of the second portion of the duodenum. A distinct filling defect is visible within the pancreatic duct at the level of the pancreatic head, likely representing a pancreatic calculus. Distal to this obstruction, the pancreatic duct shows mild compensatory dilatation. The image is clinically relevant for diagnosing congenital anomalies such as annular pancreas and associated complications like obstructive pancreatolithiasis or pancreaticobiliary maljunction.

This diagnostic image is a 3D reconstruction from Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showing the biliary and pancreatic duct systems. The gallbladder is visualized as a distended, lobulated sac-like structure connected to the biliary tree. The intrahepatic bile ducts appear as a branching network draining into the common bile duct. A significant anatomical variant is demonstrated where the main pancreatic duct forms an annular configuration, encircling the projected location of the second portion of the duodenum. A distinct filling defect is visible within the pancreatic duct at the level of the pancreatic head, likely representing a pancreatic calculus. Distal to this obstruction, the pancreatic duct shows mild compensatory dilatation. The image is clinically relevant for diagnosing congenital anomalies such as annular pancreas and associated complications like obstructive pancreatolithiasis or pancreaticobiliary maljunction.

This composite of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans highlights diagnostic findings in a 35-year-old male with a pancreatic pseudocyst. Image A is an axial T2-weighted abdominal scan showing a pancreatic pseudocyst (indicated by a white arrow) characterized by an atypical low or mixed-low signal intensity, located in the peripancreatic region. Images B and C present Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) views in 2D and 3D formats, respectively. Both MRCP modalities demonstrate high-signal (bright) intensity within the biliary tree, including the gallbladder, cystic duct, and common bile duct. The 3D MRCP in panel C offers superior spatial resolution and anatomical detail compared to the 2D reconstruction in panel B. Notably, neither MRCP sequence successfully visualizes the cystic lesion or its communication with the main pancreatic duct, illustrating potential limitations of standard MRCP in detecting certain pseudocysts that present with low T2 signal intensity. These images are essential for understanding the comparative utility of different MRI sequences in hepatobiliary and pancreatic pathology.

This composite of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans highlights diagnostic findings in a 35-year-old male with a pancreatic pseudocyst. Image A is an axial T2-weighted abdominal scan showing a pancreatic pseudocyst (indicated by a white arrow) characterized by an atypical low or mixed-low signal intensity, located in the peripancreatic region. Images B and C present Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) views in 2D and 3D formats, respectively. Both MRCP modalities demonstrate high-signal (bright) intensity within the biliary tree, including the gallbladder, cystic duct, and common bile duct. The 3D MRCP in panel C offers superior spatial resolution and anatomical detail compared to the 2D reconstruction in panel B. Notably, neither MRCP sequence successfully visualizes the cystic lesion or its communication with the main pancreatic duct, illustrating potential limitations of standard MRCP in detecting certain pseudocysts that present with low T2 signal intensity. These images are essential for understanding the comparative utility of different MRI sequences in hepatobiliary and pancreatic pathology.

This diagnostic image is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) scan, a specialized MRI modality used to visualize the biliary and pancreatic ducts. The image provides a clear view of the extrahepatic biliary tree, showing a common bile duct (CBD) of normal caliber and a visible pancreatic duct. Notably, there is a remnant cystic duct present, which is consistent with the patient's history of a prior cholecystectomy. The biliary tree appears smooth without evidence of filling defects, such as choledocholithiasis (bile duct stones), or significant ductal dilation (strictures). The high signal intensity typical of fluid-filled structures on T2-weighted MRCP sequences allows for the assessment of ductal patency and morphology. This visual is representative of a normal postoperative biliary anatomy in a clinical workup for acute pancreatitis, where biliary obstruction has been ruled out as the primary etiology.

This diagnostic image is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) scan, a specialized MRI modality used to visualize the biliary and pancreatic ducts. The image provides a clear view of the extrahepatic biliary tree, showing a common bile duct (CBD) of normal caliber and a visible pancreatic duct. Notably, there is a remnant cystic duct present, which is consistent with the patient's history of a prior cholecystectomy. The biliary tree appears smooth without evidence of filling defects, such as choledocholithiasis (bile duct stones), or significant ductal dilation (strictures). The high signal intensity typical of fluid-filled structures on T2-weighted MRCP sequences allows for the assessment of ductal patency and morphology. This visual is representative of a normal postoperative biliary anatomy in a clinical workup for acute pancreatitis, where biliary obstruction has been ruled out as the primary etiology.

This composite diagnostic image illustrates secondary complications of pancreatic pathology, specifically ductal obstruction. Panel A is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showing a significant dilatation of the intrahepatic and extrahepatic biliary tree. There is a marked expansion of the common bile duct and gallbladder, secondary to a distal obstruction. The branching bile ducts appear thickened and tortuous, indicating high-pressure upstream effects. Panel B is an axial contrast-enhanced CT scan of the abdomen showing a dilated main pancreatic duct, indicated by a yellow arrow. The pancreatic duct exhibits distal dilatation with a beaded or irregular morphology, a finding commonly associated with proximal mass lesions or chronic obstructive changes. Together, these images demonstrate 'double duct sign' characteristics, where both biliary and pancreatic drainage systems are compromised, frequently seen in periampullary or pancreatic head tumors such as metastases or primary carcinoma.

This composite diagnostic image illustrates secondary complications of pancreatic pathology, specifically ductal obstruction. Panel A is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showing a significant dilatation of the intrahepatic and extrahepatic biliary tree. There is a marked expansion of the common bile duct and gallbladder, secondary to a distal obstruction. The branching bile ducts appear thickened and tortuous, indicating high-pressure upstream effects. Panel B is an axial contrast-enhanced CT scan of the abdomen showing a dilated main pancreatic duct, indicated by a yellow arrow. The pancreatic duct exhibits distal dilatation with a beaded or irregular morphology, a finding commonly associated with proximal mass lesions or chronic obstructive changes. Together, these images demonstrate 'double duct sign' characteristics, where both biliary and pancreatic drainage systems are compromised, frequently seen in periampullary or pancreatic head tumors such as metastases or primary carcinoma.

This composite figure displays diagnostic imaging of the hepatobiliary and pancreatic systems. Image (a) is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) demonstrating significant stenosis of the distal common bile duct and the distal main pancreatic duct, resulting in proximal ductal dilation (double-duct sign). A linear radiopaque plastic stent is visible within the common bile duct. Images (b), (c), and (d) are coronal CT scans showing the temporal progression of pancreatic pathology. Image (b) shows the baseline appearance. Image (c), acquired 11 months later, reveals diffuse swelling (hypertrophy) of the entire pancreatic parenchyma. Image (d) illustrates subsequent disease evolution, characterized by swelling localized to the pancreatic head, while the body and tail exhibit atrophic changes. Significant peripancreatic soft tissue infiltration is also noted in (d). This series is clinically relevant for evaluating secondary pancreatic involvement and biliary obstruction, typically seen in metastatic disease or progressive pancreatic conditions.

This composite figure displays diagnostic imaging of the hepatobiliary and pancreatic systems. Image (a) is a Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) demonstrating significant stenosis of the distal common bile duct and the distal main pancreatic duct, resulting in proximal ductal dilation (double-duct sign). A linear radiopaque plastic stent is visible within the common bile duct. Images (b), (c), and (d) are coronal CT scans showing the temporal progression of pancreatic pathology. Image (b) shows the baseline appearance. Image (c), acquired 11 months later, reveals diffuse swelling (hypertrophy) of the entire pancreatic parenchyma. Image (d) illustrates subsequent disease evolution, characterized by swelling localized to the pancreatic head, while the body and tail exhibit atrophic changes. Significant peripancreatic soft tissue infiltration is also noted in (d). This series is clinically relevant for evaluating secondary pancreatic involvement and biliary obstruction, typically seen in metastatic disease or progressive pancreatic conditions.

Searching Images

MRCP coronal oblique slice planning positioning biliary tree

Here's a normal MRCP image to illustrate the anatomy the planning protocol is designed to capture:
Normal MRCP showing common bile duct, pancreatic duct, and post-cholecystectomy remnant cystic duct
This shows a normal-caliber common bile duct (CBD) and visible pancreatic duct - a smooth biliary tree without filling defects (stones) or dilation. This is exactly what the coronal oblique thick-slab MRCP sequence (RAO rotation to capture the CBD + pancreatic duct together) is designed to display.
For comparison, here are two examples showing why correct slab positioning/coverage matters clinically:
Pancreas divisum (a variant MRCP planning must capture by including both dorsal and ventral ducts in the slab):
MRCP demonstrating pancreas divisum with dorsal duct crossing over the CBD and a stenosis at the minor papilla
Double-duct sign (obstruction of both CBD and pancreatic duct, seen in periampullary/pancreatic head tumors) - this is a classic finding surgeons rely on MRCP to demonstrate before intervention:
MRCP showing biliary and pancreatic ductal dilation from a distal obstruction with a stent in place
If a slab is angled or positioned incorrectly during planning (e.g., too far anterior/posterior, or rotation too shallow), findings like the divisum's minor papilla stenosis or a subtle double-duct sign can be missed entirely, which is why the RAO/LAO obliquing technique described earlier is done deliberately around the CBD's known course on the axial localizer.

I want imagine planing for technologist

Searching Images

MRI scanner console screen slice positioning localizer planning box technologist

Searching the Web

MRCP planning technologist localizer coronal oblique slab positioning screenshot

Loading Image
Loading Image
Loading Image
Here's a technologist-view image showing exactly how MRCP planning works at the console:
MRCP planning: panel (a) shows the axial localizer image with multiple oblique slab angles marked as dotted lines radiating across the biliary/pancreatic region; panels (b-f) show the resulting thick-slab MRCP projection images obtained at each of those different oblique rotation angles

How to read this image as a technologist

Panel (a) is the axial T2 HASTE/TRUFISP localizer - this is the image you plan on. Each dotted line represents a different rotation angle for the coronal oblique thick slab, centered and pivoting around the common bile duct (CBD)/porta hepatis region.
Panels (b) through (f) show the resulting projection MRCP images as you rotate the slab through different oblique angles. Notice how:
  • Some angles cleanly show the CBD and pancreatic duct together (closer to the RAO 20-30° rotation described earlier)
  • Other angles bring in more of the gallbladder or lose part of the pancreatic duct out of the slab
  • The "best" angle is the one where the CBD, pancreatic duct, and relevant gallbladder anatomy all stay within the slab without the duct exiting the slice plane obliquely (which causes signal dropout/discontinuity)
This is exactly why the standard workflow is:
  1. Get the axial localizer through the CBD.
  2. Draw the slab across the duct.
  3. Rotate (not just translate) the slab 20-30° until the whole ductal course lines up within the slab thickness, checking with a quick single-slice thick-slab acquisition before committing to the longer 3D sequence.
  4. Cross-check position on the sagittal and coronal planes before finalizing.
A common technologist error is translating the slab up/down without rotating it enough - this cuts off either the intrahepatic ducts (too low) or the distal CBD/ampulla (too high), rather than adjusting the angle to follow the duct's oblique anatomical course.
If you want, I can also find an example showing the axial-plane slab positioning for the 3D respiratory-gated MRCP (the volumetric acquisition), which is angled differently from the single-slice thick-slab projection shown here.

Abdomen Cor planing for technician

Searching Images

MRI abdomen coronal localizer slice planning positioning liver kidneys

Searching the Web

MRI abdomen coronal sequence planning technologist localizer positioning screenshot liver kidneys

Loading Image
Loading Image
Loading Image
Loading Image
Here's an abdomen coronal planning image showing the dotted slice-positioning grid used to prescribe axial slices from the coronal localizer:
Coronal abdominal MRI localizer with dotted lines marking the planned axial slice positions running through the liver and kidneys

How abdomen coronal planning works for the technologist

Step 1 - Acquire the localizer Run a fast 3-plane (or single coronal) T2 HASTE/SSFSE localizer first - acquisition under 25 seconds, free-breathing. This coronal image becomes your reference for planning every subsequent sequence.
Step 2 - Patient setup before planning
  • Supine, head-first, spine coil under the patient + body/phased-array coil over the abdomen (xiphoid to anterior superior iliac spine).
  • Straps tightened over the coil to reduce respiratory motion artifact.
  • Laser landmark centered at the lower intercostal margin (roughly xiphoid level) so the coronal FOV is centered correctly on first shot.
Step 3 - Plan the coronal slice package on the axial localizer
  • Right-click/drag the slice block onto the axial localizer image.
  • Slice acquisition direction: anterior to posterior.
  • Alignment: straight, no angulation needed for a standard coronal abdomen series (unlike MRCP obliques).
  • Anatomic coverage: from the anterior liver margin through the posterior kidneys - this ensures the whole liver, spleen, pancreas, and both kidneys are captured within the slab.
  • Typical parameters: 4-6 mm slice thickness, 1 mm gap, matrix ~256-320, FOV 350-400 mm, phase direction usually A>P or R>L depending on sequence to push ghosting artifact from lungs/heart or bowel out of the anatomy of interest.
Step 4 - Angle correction for organ-specific coronal sequences
  • For liver-focused coronal (e.g., breath-hold VIBE/LAVA): plan on the axial plane and angle the block parallel to the liver's long axis; note that inhalation pushes the diaphragm down and shifts liver position versus the initial localizer, so re-check position on a breath-hold coronal VIBE before finalizing axial slices.
  • For kidney-focused coronal: angle the positioning block parallel to the right and left renal pelvis (rather than a straight AP line) so both kidneys are captured symmetrically along their true long axis, since kidneys often lie oblique to the body's coronal plane.
  • For respiratory-gated free-breathing sequences: plan using a free-breathing localizer (not breath-hold), since the diaphragm's excursion during inhalation would otherwise cause incorrect slab positioning if planned on a breath-hold image.
Step 5 - Verify in all three planes Before running the sequence, scroll through the sagittal and axial views to confirm the coronal slab actually covers liver dome to kidney lower poles without clipping the top of the liver or the lower renal poles, since these are the most common coverage errors technologists make.
If you're planning a specific coronal sequence (e.g., breath-hold T1 VIBE Dixon, T2 HASTE, or MRV coronal 3D venous phase), let me know which one and I can walk through its specific angle/parameter adjustments.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.