التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Ultra-low-dose cone-beam CT compared to standard dose in the assessment for acute fractures. |
| المؤلفون: |
Murphy, M. C., Gibney, B., Walsh, J., Orpen, G., Kenny, E., Bolster, F., MacMahon, P. J. |
| المصدر: |
Skeletal Radiology; Jan2022, Vol. 51 Issue 1, p153-159, 7p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
CONE beam computed tomography, MULTIDETECTOR computed tomography, SPATIAL resolution, LIKERT scale |
| مستخلص: |
Purpose: Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) is superior in fracture detection than conventional radiography; however, dose is increased. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) offers higher spatial resolution and lower dose than MDCT. Manufacturers offer an ultra-low-dose algorithm. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of the ultra-low-dose CBCT (ULDCBCT) with that of the standard-dose CBCT (SDCBCT). Materials and methods: In total, 64 patients were scanned with both the SDCBCT and the ULDCBCT protocols. Both studies were reported by two consultant radiologists with fellowship training in emergency radiology separated in time. The reporter recorded a diagnosis of fracture or normal and diagnostic confidence using a 5-point Likert scale. The gold standard was taken as the SDCBCT. Reporters were blinded to the indication and the SDCBCT report. Cases of discrepancy were resolved by consensus. Results: There were 34 fractures and 30 cases had no fracture. Several fractures were missed using the UDCBCT, and there were also several cases of overdiagnosis. ULD was inferior to SD for fracture diagnosis (p < 0.00001). The diagnostic accuracy of ULDCBCT was 82.8% (75.1–88.9 CI). The diagnostic accuracy of plain radiograph was 64% (55.1–75.7% CI). Diagnostic confidence was reduced; the mean confidence for SDCBCT was 4.68 vs 4.12 for ULDCBCT (p < 0.001). The Kappa for interobserver agreement was 0.6. Conclusion: ULDCBCT is inferior to SDCBCT in fracture detection and confidence is reduced. For diagnostic studies, the standard dose should be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Skeletal Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
