Zachary S Hostetler1, Joel D Stitzel2, Ashley A Weaver3. 1. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Biomedical Engineering, 575 N. Patterson Ave., Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA. Electronic address: zhostetl@wakehealth.edu. 2. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Biomedical Engineering, 575 N. Patterson Ave., Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA. Electronic address: jstitzel@wakehealth.edu. 3. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Biomedical Engineering, 575 N. Patterson Ave., Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA. Electronic address: asweaver@wakehealth.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare cortical thickness of rib specimens scanned with clinical computed tomography (clinical-CT) at 0.5 and 1.0 mm slice thickness versus micro-CT at 0.05 mm slice thickness. Cortical thickness variation and accuracy was explored by anatomical region (anterior vs. lateral) and cross-sectional quadrants (superior, interior, inferior, and exterior). METHODS: A validated cortical thickness algorithm was applied to clinical-CT and micro-CT scans of 17 rib specimens from six male post mortem human subjects aged 42-81 years. Each rib specimen was segmented and the thickness measurements were partitioned into cross-sectional quadrants in the anterior and lateral regions of the rib. Within each rib quadrant, the following were calculated: average thickness ± standard deviation, mean thickness difference between clinical-CT and micro-CT, and a thickness ratio between clinical-CT and micro-CT. Correlations from linear regression and paired-t tests were determined for paired clinical-CT and micro-CT results. RESULTS: On average, the 0.5 mm clinical-CT underestimated the micro-CT thickness by 0.005 mm, while the 1.0 mm clinical-CT overestimated the micro-CT thickness by 0.149 mm. Thickness derived from 0.5 mm clinical-CT showed greater significant linear correlations (p < 0.05) with micro-CT thickness compared to 1.0 mm clinical-CT. CONCLUSIONS: The small mean differences and thickness ratios near 1 show validation for the cortical thickness algorithm when applied to rib clinical-CT scans. Using clinical-CT scans as way to accurately measure rib cortical thickness offers a non-invasive way to analyze millions of CT scans collected each year from males and females of all ages.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare cortical thickness of rib specimens scanned with clinical computed tomography (clinical-CT) at 0.5 and 1.0 mm slice thickness versus micro-CT at 0.05 mm slice thickness. Cortical thickness variation and accuracy was explored by anatomical region (anterior vs. lateral) and cross-sectional quadrants (superior, interior, inferior, and exterior). METHODS: A validated cortical thickness algorithm was applied to clinical-CT and micro-CT scans of 17 rib specimens from six male post mortem human subjects aged 42-81 years. Each rib specimen was segmented and the thickness measurements were partitioned into cross-sectional quadrants in the anterior and lateral regions of the rib. Within each rib quadrant, the following were calculated: average thickness ± standard deviation, mean thickness difference between clinical-CT and micro-CT, and a thickness ratio between clinical-CT and micro-CT. Correlations from linear regression and paired-t tests were determined for paired clinical-CT and micro-CT results. RESULTS: On average, the 0.5 mm clinical-CT underestimated the micro-CT thickness by 0.005 mm, while the 1.0 mm clinical-CT overestimated the micro-CT thickness by 0.149 mm. Thickness derived from 0.5 mm clinical-CT showed greater significant linear correlations (p < 0.05) with micro-CT thickness compared to 1.0 mm clinical-CT. CONCLUSIONS: The small mean differences and thickness ratios near 1 show validation for the cortical thickness algorithm when applied to rib clinical-CT scans. Using clinical-CT scans as way to accurately measure rib cortical thickness offers a non-invasive way to analyze millions of CT scans collected each year from males and females of all ages.
Authors: Amanda M Agnew; Kevin Moorhouse; Yun-Seok Kang; Bruce R Donnelly; Kiel Pfefferle; Angela X Manning; Alan S Litsky; Rod Herriott; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; John H Bolte Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Robert W Mutter; Fan Liu; Andres Abreu; Ellen Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew R Kemper; Craig McNally; Eric A Kennedy; Sarah J Manoogian; Amber L Rath; Tracy P Ng; Joel D Stitzel; Eric P Smith; Stefan M Duma; Fumio Matsuoka Journal: Stapp Car Crash J Date: 2005-11