Kinematic CT of the patellofemoral joint.

Dupuy, Damian E.; Hangen, Donald H.; Zachazewski, James; Boland, Arthur L.; Palmer, William E.

doi:10.2214/ajr.169.1.9207527

Cited by 51 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only a few MR systems offer upright weight-bearing examinations of the lower extremities [2,3,10], mainly provided by special devices to simulate weight-bearing either in the supine position [4,7,8] or in a semi-upright position [1,5,6]. For CT, usually, no real physiological weight-bearing examinations are possible [19]. The recent introduction of a new scanner design, the cone-beam extremity CT used for this study, allows upright weight-bearing images of the lower extremity under physiological loading conditions [11,12,20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upright CT of the knee: the effect of weight-bearing on joint alignment

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upright CT of the knee: the effect of weight-bearing on joint alignment

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our process of identifying anatomical landmarks is not yet fully automated; thus, some investigator bias is possible, resulting in some small variation in landmark definition. Other imaging studies using CT (8,9) and MRI (11) acquire 2D data in the axial plane either statically or dynamically and estimate the 3D patellofemoral kinematics using 2D clinical measures (e.g., lateral patellofemoral angle (LPA)). Since these studies only acquire 2D data, the knee angle can only be estimated, not measured.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Precise 3D skeletal kinematics using fast phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging

Rebmann

Sheehan

2003

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo examine the precision of cine‐phase contrast (PC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques as applied to the quantification of three‐dimensional knee joint kinematics.Materials and MethodsThe knee joints of eight healthy volunteers were studied using three different dynamic, PC MRI protocols: cine‐PC (one average), cine‐PC (two averages), and cine‐PC with segmented phase encoding (fast‐PC).ResultsFast‐PC has comparable precision, shorter scan times, and improved subject interexam variability (SIEV) compared to cine‐PC (two averages). Further, cine‐PC (one average) has low precision and high SIEV, making fast‐PC the preferred method of data acquisition. Specifically, the precision of fast‐PC MRI in measuring knee joint kinematics ranged from 0.22°–1.16°.ConclusionA cine‐PC MRI technique utilizing segmented phase encoding (fast‐PC MRI) acquires dynamic data at a faster rate than other PC imaging protocols, without compromising data precision. Being able to acquire precise 3D kinematics with shorter imaging times is critical if we are to use this technique to advance ongoing research in musculoskeletal kinematics. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2003;17:206–213. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…Evaluation of the patella or of patellar tracking abnormalities of the ossified knee can be performed using radiography [5], ki nematic CT [6], and kinematic MR imaging [7]. In the immature skeleton, cartilage can not be distinguished from adjacent soft tissue with CT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%