Lena M Wollschlaeger1, Johannes Boos2, Pascal Jungbluth1, Jan-Peter Grassmann1, Christoph Schleich3, David Latz1, Patric Kroepil3, Gerald Antoch3, Joachim Windolf1, Benedikt M Schaarschmidt4. 1. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Trauma and Hand Surgery, Duesseldorf, Germany. 2. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Duesseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: johannes.boos@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 3. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Duesseldorf, Germany. 4. University Hospital Essen, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cinematic rendering (CR), a recently launched, FDA-approved rendering technique converts CT image datasets into nearly photorealistic 3D reconstructions by using a unique lighting model. The purpose of this study was to compare CR to volume rendering technique (VRT) images in the preoperative visualization of multifragmentary intraarticular lower extremity fractures. METHOD: In this retrospective study, CT datasets of 41 consecutive patients (female: n = 13; male: n = 28; mean age: 52.3 ± 17.9y) with multifragmentary intraarticular lower extremity fractures (calcaneus: n = 16; tibial pilon: n = 19; acetabulum: n = 6) were included. All datasets were acquired using a 128-row dual-source CT. A dedicated workstation was used to reconstruct CR and VRT images which were reviewed independently by two experienced board-certified traumatologists trained in special trauma surgery. Image quality, anatomical accuracy and fracture visualization were assessed on a 6-point-Likert-scale (1 = non-diagnostic; 6=excellent). The regular CT image reconstructions served as reverence standard. For each score, median values between both readers were calculated. Scores of both reconstruction methods were compared using a Wilcoxon-Ranksum test with p < 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Compared to VRT, CR demonstrated a higher image quality (VRT:2.5; CR:6.0; p < 0.001), a higher anatomical accuracy (VRT:3.5; CR:5.5; p < 0.001) and provided a more detailed visualization of the fracture (VRT:2.5; CR:6.0; p < 0.001). An additional benefit of CR reconstructions compared to VRT reconstructions was reported by both readers in 65.9 % (27/41) of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: CR reconstructions are superior to VRT due to higher image quality and higher anatomical accuracy. Traumatologists find CR reconstructions to improve visualization of lower extremity fractures which should thus be used for fracture demonstration during interdisciplinary conferences.
PURPOSE: Cinematic rendering (CR), a recently launched, FDA-approved rendering technique converts CT image datasets into nearly photorealistic 3D reconstructions by using a unique lighting model. The purpose of this study was to compare CR to volume rendering technique (VRT) images in the preoperative visualization of multifragmentary intraarticular lower extremity fractures. METHOD: In this retrospective study, CT datasets of 41 consecutive patients (female: n = 13; male: n = 28; mean age: 52.3 ± 17.9y) with multifragmentary intraarticular lower extremity fractures (calcaneus: n = 16; tibial pilon: n = 19; acetabulum: n = 6) were included. All datasets were acquired using a 128-row dual-source CT. A dedicated workstation was used to reconstruct CR and VRT images which were reviewed independently by two experienced board-certified traumatologists trained in special trauma surgery. Image quality, anatomical accuracy and fracture visualization were assessed on a 6-point-Likert-scale (1 = non-diagnostic; 6=excellent). The regular CT image reconstructions served as reverence standard. For each score, median values between both readers were calculated. Scores of both reconstruction methods were compared using a Wilcoxon-Ranksum test with p < 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Compared to VRT, CR demonstrated a higher image quality (VRT:2.5; CR:6.0; p < 0.001), a higher anatomical accuracy (VRT:3.5; CR:5.5; p < 0.001) and provided a more detailed visualization of the fracture (VRT:2.5; CR:6.0; p < 0.001). An additional benefit of CR reconstructions compared to VRT reconstructions was reported by both readers in 65.9 % (27/41) of all patients. CONCLUSIONS:CR reconstructions are superior to VRT due to higher image quality and higher anatomical accuracy. Traumatologists find CR reconstructions to improve visualization of lower extremity fractures which should thus be used for fracture demonstration during interdisciplinary conferences.