4.5 Article

Image resolution and magnification using a cone beam densitometer: optimizing data acquisition for hip morphometric analysis

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 16, Issue 7, Pages 813-822

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1751-x

Keywords

cone beam; DXA; magnification; resolution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bone mineral density (BMD) is a primary determinant of hip fracture risk. However, other factors, notably the femoral geometry, can influence hip fracture risk. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential of a new cone beam densitometer, the DMS Lexxos, in order to visualise femoral morphometry. Resolution, magnification and distortion were assessed in vitro using a line pair test pattern and a matrix test object. Results were given in comparison with currently available systems: the Hologic Discovery A and the Lunar Prodigy densitometers. The DMS Lexxos image resolution was the same in the longitudinal and transversal directions evaluated between 1.4 and 0.5 line pairs/mm (lps/mm) for an attenuation varying from 25 to 325 mm of Perplex. The longitudinal resolution was evaluated between 0.9 and 0.5 lps/mm with the Hologic Discovery densitometer, and inferior to 0.5 with the Lunar Prodigy; as for transversal resolution, it varied from 0.63 to 0.5 lps/mm and from 0.6 to inferior 0.5 lps/mm, respectively. The image was isotropic without magnification with the GE-Lunar Prodigy, whereas there was only a transversal magnification with the Hologic Discovery device. The magnification was about 1.17% cm(-1) supercript stopin the two directions, while increasing the distance of the phantom above the examination table with the Lexxos. This magnification was isotropic without distortion. The magnification could be evaluated from two images taken before and after translation of the C-arm, and a magnification correction could be applied. This method was applied to a phantom and to a human cadaver femoral bone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available