PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT) scanner in cases with and without orthopedic hardware by (1) comparing its imaging duration and image quality to those of radiography and multidetector CT (MDCT) and (2) comparing its radiation dose to that of MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Written informed consent was obtained for all subjects for this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study. Fifty subjects with (1) fracture of small bones, (2) suspected intraarticular fracture, (3) fracture at the site of complex anatomy, or (4) a surgical site difficult to assess with radiography alone were recruited and scanned on an extremity CBCT scanner prior to FDA approval. Same-day radiographs were performed in all subjects. Some subjects also underwent MDCT within 1 month of CBCT. Imaging duration and image quality were compared between CBCT and radiographs. Imaging duration, effective radiation dose, and image quality were compared between CBCT and MDCT. RESULTS: Fifty-one CBCT scans were performed in 50 subjects. Average imaging duration was shorter for CBCT than radiographs (4.5 min vs. 6.6 min, P = 0.001, n = 51) and MDCT (7.6 min vs. 10.9 min, P = 0.01, n = 7). Average estimated effective radiation dose was less for CBCT than MDCT (0.04 mSv vs. 0.13 mSv, P = .02, n = 7). CBCT images yielded more diagnostic information than radiographs in 23/51 cases and more diagnostic information than MDCT in 1/7 cases, although radiographs were superior for detecting hardware complications. CONCLUSION: CBCT performs high-resolution imaging of the extremities using less imaging time than radiographs and MDCT and lower radiation dose than MDCT.
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT) scanner in cases with and without orthopedic hardware by (1) comparing its imaging duration and image quality to those of radiography and multidetector CT (MDCT) and (2) comparing its radiation dose to that of MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Written informed consent was obtained for all subjects for this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study. Fifty subjects with (1) fracture of small bones, (2) suspected intraarticular fracture, (3) fracture at the site of complex anatomy, or (4) a surgical site difficult to assess with radiography alone were recruited and scanned on an extremity CBCT scanner prior to FDA approval. Same-day radiographs were performed in all subjects. Some subjects also underwent MDCT within 1 month of CBCT. Imaging duration and image quality were compared between CBCT and radiographs. Imaging duration, effective radiation dose, and image quality were compared between CBCT and MDCT. RESULTS: Fifty-one CBCT scans were performed in 50 subjects. Average imaging duration was shorter for CBCT than radiographs (4.5 min vs. 6.6 min, P = 0.001, n = 51) and MDCT (7.6 min vs. 10.9 min, P = 0.01, n = 7). Average estimated effective radiation dose was less for CBCT than MDCT (0.04 mSv vs. 0.13 mSv, P = .02, n = 7). CBCT images yielded more diagnostic information than radiographs in 23/51 cases and more diagnostic information than MDCT in 1/7 cases, although radiographs were superior for detecting hardware complications. CONCLUSION: CBCT performs high-resolution imaging of the extremities using less imaging time than radiographs and MDCT and lower radiation dose than MDCT.
Authors: Karen Regina Siqueira de Souza; Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari-Navarro; Ricardo de Lima Navarro; Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida Journal: Braz Oral Res Date: 2013 Jan-Feb
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: 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: Juha Koivisto; Maureen van Eijnatten; John Ludlow; Timo Kiljunen; Xie-Qi Shi; Jan Wolff Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Jakob Neubauer; Matthias Benndorf; Carolin Reidelbach; Tobias Krauß; Florian Lampert; Horst Zajonc; Elmar Kotter; Mathias Langer; Martin Fiebich; Sebastian M Goerke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 3.240