Table 1 Comparison of the quality of the images obtained with the three protocols
From: Imaging the implant-soft tissue interactions in total knee arthroplasty
Evaluation (0 = worst, 5 = best) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MRI embalmed | CT embalmed | CT fresh-frozen | ||||
Mean | Range | Mean | Range | Mean | Range | |
Bone visualization | ||||||
Distinction of bone from soft tissues | 2 | 1 to 3 | 3 | 2 to 5 | 4 | 3 to 5 |
Distinction cortical bone from cancellous bone | 3 | 2 to 4 | 4 | 2 to 5 | 5 | 5 |
Similarity to conventional medical images | 3 | 2 to 4 | 4 | 2 to 5 | 5 | 5 |
Prosthetic imaging | ||||||
Distinction of bone from implant material | 1 | 0 to 2 | 4 | 3 to 5 | 4 | 4 |
Distinction of soft tissues from implant material | 1 | 0 to 2 | 2 | 1 to 3 | 4 | 4 |
Soft tissue visualization | ||||||
Visibility of soft tissues along their entire length | 3 | 1 to 4 | 3 | 2 to 5 | 3 | 2 to 4 |
Scattering/distortion | 2 | 1 to 3 | 3 | 2 to 5 | 4 | 4 |
Range of motion | ||||||
Possibility to image the knee at all flexion angles | 2 | 0 to 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Mirroring/superposition | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
3D reconstructions | ||||||
Visibility of the entire knee | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Total score | 12 | 31 | 35 | |||