Purpose: Comparison of radiation dose of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in examinations of the hand. Materials and Methods: Dose calculations were carried out by means of Monte Carlo simulations in MDCT and CBCT. A corpse hand was examined in a 320-row MDCT scanner and a dedicated extremities CBCT scanner with standard protocols and multiple low-dose protocols. The image quality of the examinations was evaluated by 5 investigators using a Likert scale from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor) regarding depiction of cortical bone, cancellous bone, joint surfaces, soft tissues and artifacts. For a sum of ratings of all structures

No abstract

No abstract

Accurate determination of resection margins in breast specimens is important as complete removal of malignancy is a prerequisite for patients’ outcome. Mammography (DM) as 2D-technique provides only limited value in margin assessment. Therefore, we investigated whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has incremental value in assessing margins to microcalcifications. Three independent readers investigated breast specimens for presence of microcalcifications and the smallest distance to margins. Histopathology served as gold standard. Microcalcifications were detected in 15 out of 21 included specimens (71%). Pooled sensitivity for DM, DBT and CBCT for microcalcifications compared to preoperative DM was 0.98 (CI 0.94–0.99), 0.83 (CI 0.73–0.94) and 0.94 (CI 0.87–0.99), pooled specificity was 0.99 (CI 0.99–0.99), 0.73 (CI 0.51–0.96) and 0.60 (CI 0.35–0.85). Mean measurement error for margin determination for DM, DBT and CBCT was 10 mm, 14 mm and 6 mm (p = 0.002) with significant difference between CBCT and the other devices (p < 0.03). Mean reading time required by the readers to analyze DM, DBT and CBCT, was 36, 43 and 54 s (p < 0.001). Although DM allows reliable detection of microcalcifications, measurement of resection margin was significantly more accurate with CBCT. Thus, a combination of methods or improved CBCT might provide a more accurate determination of disease-free margins in breast specimens.

To compare the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws in a dedicated extremity flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) scanner and a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner.We used feet of European roe deer as phantoms for cortical fractures, cortical defects, and implanted orthopedic screws. FPCT and MDCT scans were performed with equivalent dose settings. Six observers rated the scans according to number of fragments, size of defects, size of defects opposite orthopedic screws, and the length of different screws. The image quality regarding depiction of the cortical bone was assessed. The gold standard (real number of fragments) was evaluated by autopsy.The correlation of reader assessment of fragments, cortical defects, and screws with the gold standard was similar for FPCT and MDCT. Three readers rated the subjective image quality of the MDCT to be higher, whereas the others showed no preferences.Although the image quality was rated higher in the MDCT than in the FPCT by 3 out of 6 observers, both modalities proved to be comparable regarding the visualization of cortical fractures, cortical defects, and orthopedic screws and of use to musculoskeletal radiology regarding fracture detection and postsurgical evaluation in our experimental setting.