ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal reproducibility of cartilage volume and surface area measurements in moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed 5 MRI (GE 1.5T, sagittal 3D SPGR) data sets of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee (Kellgren Lawrence grade I-II). Two scans were performed: one baseline scan and one follow-up scan 3 months later (96 +/- 10 days). For segmentation, 3D Slicer 2.5 software was used. Two segmentations were performed by two readers independently who were blinded to the scan dates. Tibial and femoral cartilage volume and surface were determined. Longitudinal and cross-sectional precision errors were calculated using the standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV%=100x[SD/mean]) from the repeated measurements in each patient. The in vivo reproducibility was then calculated as the root mean square of these individual reproducibility errors. RESULTS: The cross-sectional root mean squared coefficient of variation (RMSE-CV) was 1.2, 2.2 and 2.4% for surface area measurements (femur, medial and lateral tibia respectively) and 1.4, 1.8 and 1.3% for the corresponding cartilage volumes. Longitudinal RMSE-CV was 3.3, 3.1 and 3.7% for the surface area measurements (femur, medial and lateral tibia respectively) and 2.3, 3.3 and 2.4% for femur, medial and lateral tibia cartilage volumes. CONCLUSION: The longitudinal in vivo reproducibility of cartilage surface and volume measurements in the knee using this segmentation method is excellent. To the best of our knowledge we measured, for the first time, the longitudinal reproducibility of cartilage volume and surface area in participants with mild to moderate OA.
Subject(s)
Body Weights and Measures/methods , Cartilage, Articular/pathology , Knee Joint/pathology , Osteoarthritis, Knee/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methods , Longitudinal Studies , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic value of low-cost computer monitors and a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) workstation for the evaluation of cervical spine fractures in the emergency room. METHODS: Two groups of readers blinded to the diagnoses (2 radiologists and 3 orthopaedic surgeons) independently assessed-digital radiographs of the cervical spine (anterior-posterior, oblique and trans-oral-dens views). The radiographs of 57 patients who arrived consecutively to the emergency room in 2004 with clinical suspicion of a cervical spine injury were evaluated. The diagnostic values of these radiographs were scored on a 3-point scale (1 = diagnosis not possible/bad image quality, 2 = diagnosis uncertain, 3 = clear diagnosis of fracture or no fracture) on a PACS workstation and on two different liquid crystal display (LCD) personal computer monitors. The images were randomised to avoid memory effects. We used logistic mixed-effects models to determine the possible effects of monitor type on the evaluation of x ray images. To determine the overall effects of monitor type, this variable was used as a fixed effect, and the image number and reader group (radiologist or orthopaedic surgeon) were used as random effects on display quality. Group-specific effects were examined, with the reader group and additional fixed effects as terms. A significance level of 0.05 was established for assessing the contribution of each fixed effect to the model. RESULTS: Overall, the diagnostic score did not differ significantly between standard personal computer monitors and the PACS workstation (both p values were 0.78). CONCLUSION: Low-cost LCD personal computer monitors may be useful in establishing a diagnosis of cervical spine fractures in the emergency room.
