Computerized scheme for vertebra detection in CT scout image

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Guo ◽  
Qiang Chen ◽  
Hanxun Zhou ◽  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Lin Cong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2003 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-439
Author(s):  
T. Sasaki ◽  
Y. Saito ◽  
H. Yodono ◽  
G. L. M. Prado ◽  
H. Miura ◽  
...  

Purpose: To assess the ability of double oblique axial (DOA) MR arthrography in evaluating labral-ligamentous complex compared with conventional axial (CA) MR arthrography. Material and Methods: MR arthrography of 51 shoulders, subsequently examined with arthroscopy, were retrospectively reviewed. DOA imaging was performed in all 51 shoulders and both DOA and CA imaging in 37 using a 1.5 T unit with gradient recalled-echo T2*-weighted sequences. DOA imaging was performed using perpendicular planes to the long axis of the glenoid fossa obtained by an oblique sagittal scout image. We compared the ability of DOA with that of CA MR arthrography to assess labral injuries and to demonstrate the whole length of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (AIGHL), which were shown to be intact by arthroscopy. Results: For anterior labral injuries, sensitivity and specificity were 87% and 93% with CA, and 94% and 100% with DOA imaging, respectively. For posterior labral injuries, sensitivity and specificity were 47% and 100% with CA, and 79% and 96% with DOA imaging, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between CA and DOA images, except for the ability to diagnose posterior labral injuries, where DOA imaging had a significant superior sensitivity ( p = 0.0327). DOA images also demonstrated the whole length of the intact AIGHL in 10 of 11 shoulders, while CA imaging showed this in only 3 of 11. Conclusion: DOA imaging was equal or better than CA imaging for evaluating the labral-ligamentous complex.


2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 855-861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason G. Domina ◽  
Ramon Sanchez ◽  
Indu R. Meesa ◽  
Emmanuel Christodoulou

Spine ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 1386-1387 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT J. COOMBS ◽  
NABIL A. EBRAHEIM ◽  
W. T. JACKSON ◽  
Robert J. Coombs

1991 ◽  
Vol 47 (8) ◽  
pp. 1499
Author(s):  
Toshiharu Kusumoto ◽  
Noboru Matunaga ◽  
Tohru Murakami ◽  
Takahiro Kitayama ◽  
Michio Kono ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. E117-E121
Author(s):  
Bradley T Schmidt ◽  
Conrad D Pun ◽  
Wendell B Lake ◽  
Daniel K Resnick

Abstract Background Percutaneous glycerol rhizotomy (PGR) is a well-described treatment for trigeminal neuralgia; however, the technique in using surface landmarks and fluoroscopy has not drastically changed since being first introduced. In this paper, we describe a protocol for PGR using computed tomography (CT) guidance based on an experience of over 7 yr and 200 patients. Objective To introduce an approach for PGR using CT guidance and, in doing so, demonstrate possible benefits over the traditional fluoroscopic technique. Methods Using a standard CT scanner, patients are placed supine with head in extension. Barium paste and a CT scout image are used to identify and plan a trajectory to the foramen ovale. A laser localization system built into the CT scanner helps to guide placement of the spinal needle into the foramen ovale. The needle position in the foramen is confirmed with a short-sequence CT scan. Results CT-guided PGR provides multiple benefits over standard fluoroscopy, including improved visualization of the skull base and significant reduction in radiation exposure to the surgeon and staff. Side benefits include improved procedure efficiency, definitive imaging evidence of correct needle placement, and potentially increased patient safety. We have had no significant complications in over 200 patients. CONCLUSION CT-guided PGR is a useful technique for treating trigeminal neuralgia based on better imaging of the skull base, better efficiency of the procedure, and elimination of radiation exposure for the surgeon and staff compared to traditional fluoroscopic based techniques.


2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 908-913 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mika Kortesniemi ◽  
Eero Salli ◽  
Raija Seuri

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011419S0024
Author(s):  
Jae Young Kim ◽  
Dong-II Chun ◽  
Jaeho Cho ◽  
Young Yi

Category: Hindfoot Introduction/Purpose: Tarsal tunnel volume is affected by position of the foot and the alignment of the ankle. Although medial displacement calcaneal osteotomy (MDCO) significantly alters the alignment of the hindfoot, the change of tarsal tunnel volume after this procedure has not yet been well documented. Therefore, authors investigated the volumetric change of tarsal tunnel after MDCO using Computed Tomography (CT) scan. Methods: This retrospective study involved 101 feet of 91 patients who underwent a MDCO at our institution from March 2016 to December 2018. We compared the tarsal tunnel volume from the preoperative and postoperative CT scan images under following protocols. On a sagittal scout image, the oblique axial plane was drawn parallel to the long axis of the calcaneus using talonavicular joint as a landmark. Serial oblique axial images were displayed using PACS (PathSpeed, GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) with both the soft tissue and the bone window settings. The volume of tarsal tunnel was evaluated from just distal to the tip of medial malleolus anterior colliculus to distance of 3 cm distal using 10 consecutive images by drawing the border of tarsal tunnel. The volume was calculated by adding 10 cross-sectional areas and then multiplying by 3 mm corresponding to slice thickness. Results: The mean preoperative and postoperative tarsal tunnel volume were 12229 mm3 (SD, 1842 mm3) and 12762 mm3 (SD, 1803 mm3), respectively. There was 4.6% (SD, 3.4%) of volume increase after MDCO (p <0.001). Results indicated high inter- and intraobserver reliability coefficients (r = 0.97, r = 0.98, respectively). Conclusion: MDCO increased the volume of tarsal tunnel. This finding might support clinicians performing MDCO as a conjunctive surgical option in treating patients with tarsal tunnel syndrome.


CHEST Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 158 (4) ◽  
pp. A2529
Author(s):  
Alex Chen ◽  
Rohit Munagala ◽  
Atul Lodh ◽  
Kate Stanitski ◽  
Jayanth Keshavamurthy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document