PURPOSE: This paper assesses interscan, interreader, and intrareader variability of C-arm CT and compares it to that of flat-panel volume-CT (fpVCT) and high-definition multi-detector-CT (HD-MDCT). METHODS: Five cadaver knee specimens were imaged using C-arm-CT, fpVCT, and HD-MDCT. Apparent (app.) trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), app. trabecular number (TbN), app. trabecular spacing (TbSp), and app. trabecular thickness (TbTh) of the proximal tibia were measured by three readers. Interreader, intrareader, and interscan variability for C-arm CT was expressed as coefficient of variation (CV), standard deviation (SD), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: With the exception of app.TbSp (CV: 7.05-9.35%, SD: 0.06-0.09, ICC: 0.89-0.94), the variability of C-arm CT was low (CV: 2.41-6.43%, SD: 0.01-0.048, ICC: 0.65-0.98). Its interreader reliability (CV: 2.66-4.55%, SD: 0.01-0.03, ICC: 0.81-0.95) was comparable to that of HD-MDCT (CV: 2.41-4.08%, SD: 0.014-0.016, ICC: 0.95-0.96), and fpVCT (CV: 3.13-5.63%, SD: 0.009-0.036, ICC: 0.64-0.98) for all parameters except app.TbSp. CONCLUSIONS: C-arm CT is a reliable method for assessing trabecular bone architectural parameters with the exception of app.TbSp due to spatial resolution limitation.
PURPOSE: This paper assesses interscan, interreader, and intrareader variability of C-arm CT and compares it to that of flat-panel volume-CT (fpVCT) and high-definition multi-detector-CT (HD-MDCT). METHODS: Five cadaver knee specimens were imaged using C-arm-CT, fpVCT, and HD-MDCT. Apparent (app.) trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), app. trabecular number (TbN), app. trabecular spacing (TbSp), and app. trabecular thickness (TbTh) of the proximal tibia were measured by three readers. Interreader, intrareader, and interscan variability for C-arm CT was expressed as coefficient of variation (CV), standard deviation (SD), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: With the exception of app.TbSp (CV: 7.05-9.35%, SD: 0.06-0.09, ICC: 0.89-0.94), the variability of C-arm CT was low (CV: 2.41-6.43%, SD: 0.01-0.048, ICC: 0.65-0.98). Its interreader reliability (CV: 2.66-4.55%, SD: 0.01-0.03, ICC: 0.81-0.95) was comparable to that of HD-MDCT (CV: 2.41-4.08%, SD: 0.014-0.016, ICC: 0.95-0.96), and fpVCT (CV: 3.13-5.63%, SD: 0.009-0.036, ICC: 0.64-0.98) for all parameters except app.TbSp. CONCLUSIONS: C-arm CT is a reliable method for assessing trabecular bone architectural parameters with the exception of app.TbSp due to spatial resolution limitation.
Authors: Gerd Diederichs; Thomas M Link; Marie Kentenich; Karsten Schwieger; Markus B Huber; Andrew J Burghardt; Sharmila Majumdar; Patrik Rogalla; Ahi S Issever Journal: Bone Date: 2009-01-31 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Charles H Chesnut; Sharmilla Majumdar; David C Newitt; Andrew Shields; Jan Van Pelt; Ellen Laschansky; Moise Azria; Audrey Kriegman; Melvin Olson; Erik F Eriksen; Linda Mindeholm Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2005-04-27 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Alda L Tam; Ashraf Mohamed; Marcus Pfister; Ponraj Chinndurai; Esther Rohm; Andrew F Hall; Michael J Wallace Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: L Joseph Melton; B Lawrence Riggs; Tony M Keaveny; Sara J Achenbach; Paul F Hoffmann; Jon J Camp; Peggy A Rouleau; Mary L Bouxsein; Shreyasee Amin; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Richard A Robb; Sundeep Khosla Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Amit Mehndiratta; James D Rabinov; Michael Grasruck; Eric C Liao; David Crandell; Rajiv Gupta Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C M Phan; O Khalilzadeh; J Dinkel; I S Wang; M A Bredella; M Misra; K K Miller; A Klibanski; R Gupta Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Oliver Bissinger; Jan S Kirschke; Florian Andreas Probst; Martin Stauber; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff; Bernhard Haller; Carolin Götz; Christian Plank; Andreas Kolk Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 3.240