2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00256-022-04223-1
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Weight-bearing cone-beam CT: the need for standardised acquisition protocols and measurements to fulfill high expectations—a review of the literature

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 117 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although this has been achieved in several previous studies [ 4 , 8 , 9 ], we have for the first time analysed the inter-operator reproducibility and test-retest repeatability of 3-D JSW measurement at the ankle, demonstrating optimum limits of agreement nearly universally at values less than the isotropic imaging voxel dimensions of 0.37 mm. Repeatability limits of agreement equate to the smallest detectable difference that can be assumed to be not from factors related to imaging acquisition or measurement, and thus represent a sensitivity threshold above which any change in JSW upon repeat imaging can be assumed to be real [ 14 ]. As an example from our results, any difference between baseline and follow-up in average JSW at the talar dome and medial gutter greater than the threshold of 0.28 mm could be assumed to be real.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Although this has been achieved in several previous studies [ 4 , 8 , 9 ], we have for the first time analysed the inter-operator reproducibility and test-retest repeatability of 3-D JSW measurement at the ankle, demonstrating optimum limits of agreement nearly universally at values less than the isotropic imaging voxel dimensions of 0.37 mm. Repeatability limits of agreement equate to the smallest detectable difference that can be assumed to be not from factors related to imaging acquisition or measurement, and thus represent a sensitivity threshold above which any change in JSW upon repeat imaging can be assumed to be real [ 14 ]. As an example from our results, any difference between baseline and follow-up in average JSW at the talar dome and medial gutter greater than the threshold of 0.28 mm could be assumed to be real.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although many studies have now used WBCT to investigate foot and ankle disorders, there is still a need to understand the implications for differences in imaging acquisition protocols, e.g. with respect to joint positioning and whether weight-bearing should be unilateral or bilateral [ 14 ]. Decisions on protocol standardisation would also need to ensure scanning times are tolerable for individuals with painful conditions so that they can maintain positioning without moving.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…[2][3][4][5] Acquired atfoot arises when children with normal arches develop atfoot during growth, primarily due to factors such as a tight gastrocnemius-soleus complex, obesity, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, or weakened plantar fascia and other archsupporting ligaments. [6][7][8][9][10] Previous studies have described the morphological changes in atfoot using various parameters. [11][12][13][14][15] (Table 1) These parameters, including the calcaneo bular and talo bular distances, calcaneal inclination (CIA), lateral talocalcaneal (LTCA), and talocalcaneal (TCA) angles, as well as the angle between the talus and calcaneus (TACA), are used to evaluate the relative spatial displacement of the hindfoot bones and bula.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%