Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2421050921
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ohashi, K.
Right arrow Articles by Berbaum, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ohashi, K.
Right arrow Articles by Berbaum, K. S.
(Radiology 2007;242:252-257.)
© RSNA, 2007

Technical Developments

Peroneal Tendon Subluxation and Dislocation: Detection on Volume-rendered Images—Initial Experience1

Kenjirou Ohashi, MD, José M. Restrepo, MD, Georges Y. El-Khoury, MD and Kevin S. Berbaum, PhD

1 From the Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Dr, Iowa City, IA 52242. From the 2004 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received June 14, 2005; revision requested August 12; revision received October 26; accepted November 14; final version accepted March 20, 2006. Address correspondence to K.O. (e-mail: kenjirou-ohashi{at}uiowa.edu).

Institutional review board approval was received and informed consent was not required for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant study. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively assess the time efficiency of three-dimensional volume-rendered images obtained from multi–detector row computed tomographic data for the diagnosis of peroneal tendon subluxation or dislocation by using the consensus interpretation of multiplanar reformatted (MPR) images as the reference standard. The reference standard was provided by two musculoskeletal radiologists, and two less experienced readers evaluated 37 images in 32 patients (24 men, eight women; mean age, 41 years; age range, 18–75 years) with acute calcaneal fractures. An analysis of variance was used to compare interpretation time, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze diagnostic difficulty. The average time required for diagnosis was significantly shorter with volume-rendered images than with MPR images (reader 1: 42 vs 78 seconds, P < .001; reader 2: 50 vs 69 seconds, P < .01).

© RSNA, 2007






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2007 by the Radiological Society of North America.