Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Skeletal Radiol. 2011 Aug;40(8):1065-72. doi: 10.1007/s00256-010-1002-5. Epub 2010 Jul 25.

Trabecular structure analysis using C-arm CT: comparison with MDCT and flat-panel volume CT.

Author information

1
Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital Neuroradiology, GRB-273A, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA. cmphan@partners.org

Abstract

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.

PMID:
20658286
DOI:
10.1007/s00256-010-1002-5
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center