Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet

Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Image quality assessment in spine surgery: a comparison of intraoperative CBCT and postoperative MDCT
Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Trauma & Musculoskeletal Radiol, ME Trauma Radiol, S-17164 Stockholm, Sweden.;Karolinska Inst, Dept Clin Neurosci, Stockholm, Sweden..
Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Neuroradiol, Stockholm, Sweden.;Karolinska Inst, Dept Mol Med & Surg, Stockholm, Sweden..
Karolinska Inst, Dept Clin Neurosci, Stockholm, Sweden.;Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Stockholm, Sweden..
Karolinska Inst, Dept Clin Neurosci, Stockholm, Sweden..
Show others and affiliations
2025 (English)In: Acta Neurochirurgica, ISSN 0001-6268, E-ISSN 0942-0940, Vol. 167, no 1, article id 94Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective

To evaluate if intraoperative cone-beam CT (CBCT) provides equivalent image quality to postoperative multidetector CT (MDCT) in spine surgery, potentially eliminating unnecessary imaging and cumulative radiation exposure.

Methods

Twenty-seven patients (16 men, 11 women; median age 39 years) treated with spinal fixation surgery were evaluated using intraoperative CBCT and postoperative MDCT. The images were independently evaluated by four neuroradiologists, utilizing a five-step Likert scale and visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis. The area under the VGC curve (AUCVGC) quantified preferences between modalities. Intra- and inter-observer variability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Image quality was objectively evaluated by contrast and signal-to-noise measurements (CNR, SNR).

Results

In image quality, CBCT was the preferred modality in thoracolumbar spine (AUCVGC = 0.58, p < 0.001). Conversely, MDCT was preferred in cervical spine (AUCVGC = 0.38, p < 0.004). The agreement was good for inter-observer and moderate in intra-observer (ICC 0.76-0.77 vs 0.60-0.71), p < 0.001. SNR and CNR were comparable in thoracolumbar imaging, while MDCT provided superior and more consistent image quality in the cervical spine, p < 0.001.

Conclusion

In spine surgery, CBCT provides superior image quality for thoracolumbar imaging, while MDCT performs better for cervical imaging. Intraoperative CBCT could potentially replace postoperative MDCT in thoracolumbar spine procedures, while postoperative MDCT remains essential for cervical spine assessment.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2025. Vol. 167, no 1, article id 94
Keywords [en]
Cone beam computed tomography, Spine, Neuroradiology, Neurosurgery, Image quality
National Category
Radiology and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-554688DOI: 10.1007/s00701-025-06503-wISI: 001456580300001PubMedID: 40164732Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105001446163OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-554688DiVA, id: diva2:1952811
Available from: 2025-04-16 Created: 2025-04-16 Last updated: 2025-04-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1341 kB)14 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1341 kBChecksum SHA-512
1a9e57a36ee9a017c5df226c40c354a513c65e42ce95a087b74bca5311ae4cf99c5909703d1c2ba19e47065517689581387711581c583bc7354fc2f66bf47dae
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Elmi-Terander, Adrian
By organisation
Orthopaedics and Handsurgery
In the same journal
Acta Neurochirurgica
Radiology and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 16 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 49 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf