4.6 Review

Cone beam CT of the musculoskeletal system: clinical applications

期刊

INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 35-45

出版社

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1007/s13244-017-0582-1

关键词

Cone beam computed tomography; Multidetector computed tomography; Conventional radiography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Musculoskeletal imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this pictorial review is to illustrate the use of CBCT in a broad spectrum of musculoskeletal disorders and to compare its diagnostic merit with other imaging modalities, such as conventional radiography (CR), Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Background Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) has been widely used for dental imaging for over two decades. Discussion Current CBCT equipment allows use for imaging of various musculoskeletal applications. Because of its low cost and relatively low irradiation, CBCT may have an emergent role in making a more precise diagnosis, assessment of local extent and follow-up of fractures and dislocations of small bones and joints. Due to its exquisite high spatial resolution, CBCT in combination with arthrography may be the preferred technique for detection and local staging of cartilage lesions in small joints. Evaluation of degenerative joint disorders may be facilitated by CBCT compared to CR, particularly in those anatomical areas in which there is much superposition of adjacent bony structures. The use of CBCT in evaluation of osteomyelitis is restricted to detection of sequestrum formation in chronic osteomyelitis. Miscellaneous applications include assessment of (symptomatic) variants, detection and characterization of tumour and tumour-like conditions of bone. Teaching Points Review the spectrum of MSK disorders in which CBCT may be complementary to other imaging techniques. Compare the advantages and drawbacks of CBCT compared to other imaging techniques. Define the present and future role of CBCT in musculoskeletal imaging.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据