OBJECTIVE: To assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging. METHODS: Ten cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80 kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120 kVp- 300 mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic. RESULTS: Knee CBCT images were rated "excellent" or "good" (median scores 5 and 4) for "bone" and "soft tissue" visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated "excellent" or "adequate" (median scores 5 and 3) for "bone" and "soft tissue" visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26-0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27-0.54). CONCLUSION: CBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks. KEY POINTS: • CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging. • CBCT images were "excellent" for "bone" and "good/adequate" for "soft tissue" visualization tasks. • CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.
OBJECTIVE: To assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging. METHODS: Ten cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80 kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120 kVp- 300 mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic. RESULTS: Knee CBCT images were rated "excellent" or "good" (median scores 5 and 4) for "bone" and "soft tissue" visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated "excellent" or "adequate" (median scores 5 and 3) for "bone" and "soft tissue" visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26-0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27-0.54). CONCLUSION: CBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks. KEY POINTS: • CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging. • CBCT images were "excellent" for "bone" and "good/adequate" for "soft tissue" visualization tasks. • CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.
Authors: Avice O'Connell; David L Conover; Yan Zhang; Posy Seifert; Wende Logan-Young; Chuen-Fu Linda Lin; Lawrence Sahler; Ruola Ning Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anna Hirschmann; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Georg Klammer; Norman Espinosa; Florian M Buck Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Seppo K Koskinen; Ville V Haapamäki; Jari Salo; Nina C Lindfors; Mika Kortesniemi; Lauri Seppälä; Kimmo T Mattila Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Tim Finkenstaedt; Fabian Morsbach; Maurizio Calcagni; Magdalena Vich; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Hatem Alkadhi; Val M Runge; Gustav Andreisek; Roman Guggenberger Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Kun Ma; Mingqiang Li; Xi Tao; Dong Zeng; Yongbo Wang; Zhaoying Bian; Ziquan Wei; Gaofeng Chen; Qianjin Feng; Jianhua Ma; Jing Huang Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2018-11-30
Authors: Robyn Melanie Benz; Meritxell Alzamora Garcia; Felix Amsler; Johannes Voigt; Andreas Fieselmann; Anna Lucja Falkowski; Bram Stieltjes; Anna Hirschmann Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-03-06
Authors: Greg M Osgood; Gaurav K Thawait; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Delaram Shakoor; Adam Shaner; John Yorkston; Wojciech B Zbijewski; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Shadpour Demehri Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Qian Cao; Alejandro Sisniega; Michael Brehler; J Webster Stayman; John Yorkston; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Wojciech Zbijewski Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Gaurav K Thawait; Shadpour Demehri; Abdullah AlMuhit; Wojciech Zbijweski; John Yorkston; Filippo Del Grande; Bashir Zikria; John A Carrino; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 3.528