Advertisement

Measuring the Accuracy of CT Bone Geometry for Orthopedic Implants

  • Nicholas J. Mankovich
  • Douglas D. Robertson
  • Jacques Essinger
Conference paper

Summary

High resolution Computed Tomography imaged a cylindrical bone/soft tissue phantom on three different CT scanners at two different techniques (low kVp/mAs and high kVp/mAs). Simulated bone annuli in the images were subjected to image processing and edge detection based on radial image intensity profiles. The measured bone diameters and thicknesses were compared with the known dimensions of the bone rings in the cylindrical phantom. Bone measurement error decreased with increasing radius of the bone step and increased as the bone thickened. Analysis of Variance failed to show any significant differences in the errors across three scanners and two x-ray techniques suggesting that CT for bone 3-D can safely use lower dose techniques. The error in measuring the diameter of the bone showed a significant decrease as the diameter of the bone increased, however, bone thickness failed to show a similar trend and the measurements remained relatively accurate. Overall the accuracy of the CT bone diameter measurements ranged from −11.0% to −1.0% and thickness error from −3.7% to 5.7%.

Keywords

Cortical Bone Bone Geometry Compute Tomography Number Bone Thickness Cortical Bone Thickness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koehler, P. R., R. E. Anderson and B. Baxter. 1979. The effect of computed tomography viewer controls on anatomical measurements. Radiology. 130: 189 - 194.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith, H. W., A. A. DeSmet and E. Levine. 1982. Measurement of cortical bone thickness in a human cadaver femur: conventional roentgenography versus computed tomography. Clin Orthop Rel Res. (169):269-274.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levi, C., J. Gray, E. McCullough and R. Hattery. 1982. The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values. AJB. 139 (3): 443 - 7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith, D. K., T. H. Berquist, K.-N. An, R. A. Robb and E. Y. S. Chao. 1989. Validation of three-dimensional reconstructions of knee anatomy: CT vs MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 13 (2): 294 - 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Sumner, D., C. Olson, P. Freeman, J. Lobick and T. Andriacchi. 1989. Computed tomographic measurement of cortical bone geometry. J. Biomechanics. 22(6-7):649-653.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hangartner, T., J. Battista and T. Overton. 1987. Performance evaluation of density measurements of axial and peripheral bone with x-ray and gamma-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 32 (11): 1393 - 406.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas J. Mankovich
    • 1
  • Douglas D. Robertson
    • 2
  • Jacques Essinger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiological SciencesOlive View — UCLA Medical CenterSylmarUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyThe Johns-Hopkins University HospitalBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations