Comparison of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Flat-Panel Computed Tomography Regarding Visualization of Cortical Fractures, Cortical Defects, and Orthopedic Screws: A Phantom Study
To compare the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws in a dedicated extremity flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) scanner and a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner.We used feet of European roe deer as phantoms for cortical fractures, cortical def...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medicine (Baltimore) 2015-08, Vol.94 (31), p.e1231-e1231 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e1231 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 31 |
| container_start_page | e1231 |
| container_title | Medicine (Baltimore) |
| container_volume | 94 |
| creator | Neubauer, Jakob Benndorf, Matthias Lang, Hannah Lampert, Florian Kemna, Lars Konstantinidis, Lukas Neubauer, Claudia Reising, Kilian Zajonc, Horst Kotter, Elmar Langer, Mathias Goerke, Sebastian M. |
| description | To compare the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws in a dedicated extremity flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) scanner and a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner.We used feet of European roe deer as phantoms for cortical fractures, cortical defects, and implanted orthopedic screws. FPCT and MDCT scans were performed with equivalent dose settings. Six observers rated the scans according to number of fragments, size of defects, size of defects opposite orthopedic screws, and the length of different screws. The image quality regarding depiction of the cortical bone was assessed. The gold standard (real number of fragments) was evaluated by autopsy.The correlation of reader assessment of fragments, cortical defects, and screws with the gold standard was similar for FPCT and MDCT. Three readers rated the subjective image quality of the MDCT to be higher, whereas the others showed no preferences.Although the image quality was rated higher in the MDCT than in the FPCT by 3 out of 6 observers, both modalities proved to be comparable regarding the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws and of use to musculoskeletal radiology regarding fracture detection and postsurgical evaluation in our experimental setting. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1097/MD.0000000000001231 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4616608</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1702652126</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-13e1714bf72ce09afd37f094be7ba739ef137bc554d21c08d6b28ef353c64d353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkd1u1DAQhSMEotvCEyAhX3JBin_iOOECqdplAamrVrRwazn2ZGNw4sV2WG0fjacjy5ZSEL4ZaebMd6w5WfaM4FOCa_FqtTjF9x6hjDzIZoSzMud1WTzMZhhTnotaFEfZcYxfJg0TtHicHdGSckorMst-zH2_UcFGPyDfotXokjWQQCcf0H42JjDo2vd-HdSm2yE1GLR0KuWXagD3X8lHWKtg7LBGn20clbM3KtkDf-5Dslo5tAxKpzFAfPmnt4B28p06e4-LkDq_AWM1utIBtvE1OkOXnRqS79FVGs3uSfaoVS7C09t6kn1avr2ev8_PL959mJ-d55pxznPCgAhSNK2gGnCtWsNEi-uiAdEowWpop6s0mvPCUKJxZcqGVtAyznRZmKmcZG8O3M3Y9GA0DCkoJzfB9irspFdW_j0ZbCfX_rssSlKWuJoAL24BwX8bISbZ26jBuemCfoySCExLTgktJyk7SHXwMQZo72wIlvvU5Woh_0192np-_4d3O79jngTFQbD1LkGIX924hSA7UC51v3hc1DSnmHBcYYLzPZmzn9SgvD4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1702652126</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Flat-Panel Computed Tomography Regarding Visualization of Cortical Fractures, Cortical Defects, and Orthopedic Screws: A Phantom Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wolters Kluwer Open Health</source><source>IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Neubauer, Jakob ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Lang, Hannah ; Lampert, Florian ; Kemna, Lars ; Konstantinidis, Lukas ; Neubauer, Claudia ; Reising, Kilian ; Zajonc, Horst ; Kotter, Elmar ; Langer, Mathias ; Goerke, Sebastian M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Jakob ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Lang, Hannah ; Lampert, Florian ; Kemna, Lars ; Konstantinidis, Lukas ; Neubauer, Claudia ; Reising, Kilian ; Zajonc, Horst ; Kotter, Elmar ; Langer, Mathias ; Goerke, Sebastian M.</creatorcontrib><description>To compare the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws in a dedicated extremity flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) scanner and a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner.We used feet of European roe deer as phantoms for cortical fractures, cortical defects, and implanted orthopedic screws. FPCT and MDCT scans were performed with equivalent dose settings. Six observers rated the scans according to number of fragments, size of defects, size of defects opposite orthopedic screws, and the length of different screws. The image quality regarding depiction of the cortical bone was assessed. The gold standard (real number of fragments) was evaluated by autopsy.The correlation of reader assessment of fragments, cortical defects, and screws with the gold standard was similar for FPCT and MDCT. Three readers rated the subjective image quality of the MDCT to be higher, whereas the others showed no preferences.Although the image quality was rated higher in the MDCT than in the FPCT by 3 out of 6 observers, both modalities proved to be comparable regarding the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws and of use to musculoskeletal radiology regarding fracture detection and postsurgical evaluation in our experimental setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-7974</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-5964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001231</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26252281</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved</publisher><subject>Animals ; Bone Screws ; Deer ; Fractures, Bone - diagnostic imaging ; Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging ; Metatarsal Bones - injuries ; Multidetector Computed Tomography ; Observer Variation ; Quality Improvement Study ; Random Allocation ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><ispartof>Medicine (Baltimore), 2015-08, Vol.94 (31), p.e1231-e1231</ispartof><rights>Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-13e1714bf72ce09afd37f094be7ba739ef137bc554d21c08d6b28ef353c64d353</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4616608/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4616608/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26252281$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Jakob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benndorf, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lampert, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kemna, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konstantinidis, Lukas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reising, Kilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zajonc, Horst</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotter, Elmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langer, Mathias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goerke, Sebastian M.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Flat-Panel Computed Tomography Regarding Visualization of Cortical Fractures, Cortical Defects, and Orthopedic Screws: A Phantom Study</title><title>Medicine (Baltimore)</title><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><description>To compare the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws in a dedicated extremity flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) scanner and a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner.We used feet of European roe deer as phantoms for cortical fractures, cortical defects, and implanted orthopedic screws. FPCT and MDCT scans were performed with equivalent dose settings. Six observers rated the scans according to number of fragments, size of defects, size of defects opposite orthopedic screws, and the length of different screws. The image quality regarding depiction of the cortical bone was assessed. The gold standard (real number of fragments) was evaluated by autopsy.The correlation of reader assessment of fragments, cortical defects, and screws with the gold standard was similar for FPCT and MDCT. Three readers rated the subjective image quality of the MDCT to be higher, whereas the others showed no preferences.Although the image quality was rated higher in the MDCT than in the FPCT by 3 out of 6 observers, both modalities proved to be comparable regarding the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws and of use to musculoskeletal radiology regarding fracture detection and postsurgical evaluation in our experimental setting.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bone Screws</subject><subject>Deer</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Metatarsal Bones - injuries</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Quality Improvement Study</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><issn>0025-7974</issn><issn>1536-5964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkd1u1DAQhSMEotvCEyAhX3JBin_iOOECqdplAamrVrRwazn2ZGNw4sV2WG0fjacjy5ZSEL4ZaebMd6w5WfaM4FOCa_FqtTjF9x6hjDzIZoSzMud1WTzMZhhTnotaFEfZcYxfJg0TtHicHdGSckorMst-zH2_UcFGPyDfotXokjWQQCcf0H42JjDo2vd-HdSm2yE1GLR0KuWXagD3X8lHWKtg7LBGn20clbM3KtkDf-5Dslo5tAxKpzFAfPmnt4B28p06e4-LkDq_AWM1utIBtvE1OkOXnRqS79FVGs3uSfaoVS7C09t6kn1avr2ev8_PL959mJ-d55pxznPCgAhSNK2gGnCtWsNEi-uiAdEowWpop6s0mvPCUKJxZcqGVtAyznRZmKmcZG8O3M3Y9GA0DCkoJzfB9irspFdW_j0ZbCfX_rssSlKWuJoAL24BwX8bISbZ26jBuemCfoySCExLTgktJyk7SHXwMQZo72wIlvvU5Woh_0192np-_4d3O79jngTFQbD1LkGIX924hSA7UC51v3hc1DSnmHBcYYLzPZmzn9SgvD4</recordid><startdate>20150801</startdate><enddate>20150801</enddate><creator>Neubauer, Jakob</creator><creator>Benndorf, Matthias</creator><creator>Lang, Hannah</creator><creator>Lampert, Florian</creator><creator>Kemna, Lars</creator><creator>Konstantinidis, Lukas</creator><creator>Neubauer, Claudia</creator><creator>Reising, Kilian</creator><creator>Zajonc, Horst</creator><creator>Kotter, Elmar</creator><creator>Langer, Mathias</creator><creator>Goerke, Sebastian M.</creator><general>Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved</general><general>Wolters Kluwer Health</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150801</creationdate><title>Comparison of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Flat-Panel Computed Tomography Regarding Visualization of Cortical Fractures, Cortical Defects, and Orthopedic Screws: A Phantom Study</title><author>Neubauer, Jakob ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Lang, Hannah ; Lampert, Florian ; Kemna, Lars ; Konstantinidis, Lukas ; Neubauer, Claudia ; Reising, Kilian ; Zajonc, Horst ; Kotter, Elmar ; Langer, Mathias ; Goerke, Sebastian M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-13e1714bf72ce09afd37f094be7ba739ef137bc554d21c08d6b28ef353c64d353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bone Screws</topic><topic>Deer</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Metatarsal Bones - injuries</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Quality Improvement Study</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Jakob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benndorf, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lampert, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kemna, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konstantinidis, Lukas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reising, Kilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zajonc, Horst</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotter, Elmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langer, Mathias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goerke, Sebastian M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neubauer, Jakob</au><au>Benndorf, Matthias</au><au>Lang, Hannah</au><au>Lampert, Florian</au><au>Kemna, Lars</au><au>Konstantinidis, Lukas</au><au>Neubauer, Claudia</au><au>Reising, Kilian</au><au>Zajonc, Horst</au><au>Kotter, Elmar</au><au>Langer, Mathias</au><au>Goerke, Sebastian M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Flat-Panel Computed Tomography Regarding Visualization of Cortical Fractures, Cortical Defects, and Orthopedic Screws: A Phantom Study</atitle><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><date>2015-08-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>31</issue><spage>e1231</spage><epage>e1231</epage><pages>e1231-e1231</pages><issn>0025-7974</issn><eissn>1536-5964</eissn><abstract>To compare the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws in a dedicated extremity flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) scanner and a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner.We used feet of European roe deer as phantoms for cortical fractures, cortical defects, and implanted orthopedic screws. FPCT and MDCT scans were performed with equivalent dose settings. Six observers rated the scans according to number of fragments, size of defects, size of defects opposite orthopedic screws, and the length of different screws. The image quality regarding depiction of the cortical bone was assessed. The gold standard (real number of fragments) was evaluated by autopsy.The correlation of reader assessment of fragments, cortical defects, and screws with the gold standard was similar for FPCT and MDCT. Three readers rated the subjective image quality of the MDCT to be higher, whereas the others showed no preferences.Although the image quality was rated higher in the MDCT than in the FPCT by 3 out of 6 observers, both modalities proved to be comparable regarding the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws and of use to musculoskeletal radiology regarding fracture detection and postsurgical evaluation in our experimental setting.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved</pub><pmid>26252281</pmid><doi>10.1097/MD.0000000000001231</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0025-7974 |
| ispartof | Medicine (Baltimore), 2015-08, Vol.94 (31), p.e1231-e1231 |
| issn | 0025-7974 1536-5964 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4616608 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wolters Kluwer Open Health; IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Animals Bone Screws Deer Fractures, Bone - diagnostic imaging Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging Metatarsal Bones - injuries Multidetector Computed Tomography Observer Variation Quality Improvement Study Random Allocation Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods |
| title | Comparison of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Flat-Panel Computed Tomography Regarding Visualization of Cortical Fractures, Cortical Defects, and Orthopedic Screws: A Phantom Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T00%3A29%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Multidetector%20Computed%20Tomography%20and%20Flat-Panel%20Computed%20Tomography%20Regarding%20Visualization%20of%20Cortical%20Fractures,%20Cortical%20Defects,%20and%20Orthopedic%20Screws:%20A%20Phantom%20Study&rft.jtitle=Medicine%20(Baltimore)&rft.au=Neubauer,%20Jakob&rft.date=2015-08-01&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=31&rft.spage=e1231&rft.epage=e1231&rft.pages=e1231-e1231&rft.issn=0025-7974&rft.eissn=1536-5964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/MD.0000000000001231&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1702652126%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1702652126&rft_id=info:pmid/26252281&rfr_iscdi=true |