Interdisciplinary consensus of virtual monochromatic dual-energy CT images: is there discrepancy in preferred photon energy between surgeons and radiologists for the assessment of non-unions?

To investigate possible differences between surgeons and radiologists in selecting optimal photon energy settings from a set of virtual monochromatic dual-energy computed tomography (CT) images for the assessment of bone union in patients with a suspected non-union of the appendicular skeleton. Fift...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical radiology 2020-06, Vol.75 (6), p.448-456
Hauptverfasser: Wellenberg, R.H.H., Donders, J.C.E., Guitton, T.G., Streekstra, G.J., Kloen, P., Maas, M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To investigate possible differences between surgeons and radiologists in selecting optimal photon energy settings from a set of virtual monochromatic dual-energy computed tomography (CT) images for the assessment of bone union in patients with a suspected non-union of the appendicular skeleton. Fifty patients suspected of having bone non-union after operative fracture treatment with a variety of fixation implants were included. Patients were scanned on a dual-source CT machine using 150/100-kVp. Monochromatic images were extracted at 70, 90, 110, 130, 150, and 190 keV. Images were reviewed by 159 orthopaedic trauma surgeons and 12 musculoskeletal radiologists in order to select the best and worst energy setting to assess bone union. Furthermore, a confidence score (1–4) was given in selecting the best and worst setting to assess bone union. Monochromatic 190 keV images were selected most frequently as the optimal energy in titanium (34.8%), stainless steel (40%), and combined implants of stainless steel and titanium (40.5%). Confidence scores and average optimal energies were higher and average worst energies were lower for radiologists compared to surgeons in all hardware (p
ISSN:0009-9260
1365-229X
DOI:10.1016/j.crad.2020.01.009