DensiProbe Spine: an intraoperative measurement of bone quality in spinal instrumentation. A clinical feasibility study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT A new device, DensiProbe, has been developed to provide surgeons with intraoperative information about bone strength by measuring the peak breakaway torque. In cases of low bone quality, the treatment can be adapted to the patient's condition, for example, by improving screw-anchorage with augmentation techniques. PURPOSE The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of DensiProbe Spine in patients undergoing transpedicular fixation. STUDY DESIGN Prospective feasibility study on consecutive patients. PATIENT SAMPLE Fourteen women and 16 men were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES Local and general bone quality. METHODS These consecutive patients scheduled for transpedicular fixation were evaluated for bone mineral density (BMD), which was measured globally by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and locally via biopsies using quantitative microcomputed tomography. The breakaway torque force within the vertebral body was assessed intraoperatively via the transpedicular approach with the DensiProbe Spine. The results were correlated with the areal BMD at the lumbar spine and the local volumetric BMD (vBMD) and a subjective impression of bone strength. The feasibility of the method was evaluated, and the clinical and radiological performance was evaluated over a 1-year follow-up. This study was funded by an AO Spine research grant; DensiProbe was developed at the AO Research Institute Davos, Switzerland; the AO Foundation is owner of the intellectual property rights. RESULTS In 30 patients, 69 vertebral levels were examined. The breakaway torque consistently correlated with an experienced surgeon's quantified impression of resistance as well as with vBMD of the same vertebra. Beyond a marginal prolongation of surgery time, no adverse events related to the usage of the device were observed. CONCLUSIONS The intraoperative transpedicular measurement of the peak breakaway torque was technically feasible, safe, and reliably predictive of local vBMD during dorsal spinal instrumentations in a clinical setting. Larger studies are needed to define specific thresholds that indicate a need for the augmentation or instrumentation of additional levels.

CT dose and image quality in the last three scanner generations.

AIM To compare the computed tomography (CT) dose and image quality with the filtered back projection against the iterative reconstruction and CT with a minimal electronic noise detector. METHODS A lung phantom (Chest Phantom N1 by Kyoto Kagaku) was scanned with 3 different CT scanners: the Somatom Sensation, the Definition Flash and the Definition Edge (all from Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The scan parameters were identical to the Siemens presetting for THORAX ROUTINE (scan length 35 cm and FOV 33 cm). Nine different exposition levels were examined (reference mAs/peek voltage): 100/120, 100/100, 100/80, 50/120, 50/100, 50/80, 25/120, 25/100 and 25 mAs/80 kVp. Images from the SOMATOM Sensation were reconstructed using classic filtered back projection. Iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE, level 3) was performed for the two other scanners. A Stellar detector was used with the Somatom Definition Edge. The CT doses were represented by the dose length products (DLPs) (mGycm) provided by the scanners. Signal, contrast, noise and subjective image quality were recorded by two different radiologists with 10 and 3 years of experience in chest CT radiology. To determine the average dose reduction between two scanners, the integral of the dose difference was calculated from the lowest to the highest noise level. RESULTS When using iterative reconstruction (IR) instead of filtered back projection (FBP), the average dose reduction was 30%, 52% and 80% for bone, soft tissue and air, respectively, for the same image quality (P < 0.0001). The recently introduced Stellar detector (Sd) lowered the radiation dose by an additional 27%, 54% and 70% for bone, soft tissue and air, respectively (P < 0.0001). The benefit of dose reduction was larger at lower dose levels. With the same radiation dose, an average of 34% (22%-37%) and 25% (13%-46%) more contrast to noise was achieved by changing from FBP to IR and from IR to Sd, respectively. For the same contrast to noise level, an average of 59% (46%-71%) and 51% (38%-68%) dose reduction was produced for IR and Sd, respectively. For the same subjective image quality, the dose could be reduced by 25% (2%-42%) and 44% (33%-54%) using IR and Sd, respectively. CONCLUSION This study showed an average dose reduction between 27% and 70% for the new Stellar detector, which is equivalent to using IR instead of FBP.

Impact of a 4th generation iterative reconstruction technique on image quality in low-dose computed tomography of the chest in immunocompromised patients

PURPOSE To determine the image quality of an iterative reconstruction (IR) technique in low-dose MDCT (LDCT) of the chest of immunocompromised patients in an intraindividual comparison to filtered back projection (FBP) and to evaluate the dose reduction capability. MATERIALS AND METHODS 30 chest LDCT scans were performed in immunocompromised patients (Brilliance iCT; 20-40 mAs; mean CTDIvol: 1.7 mGy). The raw data were reconstructed using FBP and the IR technique (iDose4™, Philips, Best, The Netherlands) set to seven iteration levels. 30 routine-dose MDCT (RDCT) reconstructed with FBP served as controls (mean exposure: 116 mAs; mean CDTIvol: 7.6 mGy). Three blinded radiologists scored subjective image quality and lesion conspicuity. Quantitative parameters including CT attenuation and objective image noise (OIN) were determined. RESULTS In LDCT high iDose4™ levels lead to a significant decrease in OIN (FBP vs. iDose7: subscapular muscle 139.4 vs. 40.6 HU). The high iDose4™ levels provided significant improvements in image quality and artifact and noise reduction compared to LDCT FBP images. The conspicuity of subtle lesions was limited in LDCT FBP images. It significantly improved with high iDose4™ levels (> iDose4). LDCT with iDose4™ level 6 was determined to be of equivalent image quality as RDCT with FBP. CONCLUSION iDose4™ substantially improves image quality and lesion conspicuity and reduces noise in low-dose chest CT. Compared to RDCT, high iDose4™ levels provide equivalent image quality in LDCT, hence suggesting a potential dose reduction of almost 80%.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Improvement of research quality in the fields of orthopaedics and trauma: a global perspective.

The international orthopaedic community aims to achieve the best possible outcome for patient care by constantly modifying surgical techniques and expanding the surgeon's knowledge. These efforts require proper reflection within a setting that necessitates a higher quality standard for global orthopaedic publication. Furthermore, these techniques demand that surgeons acquire information at a rapid rate while enforcing higher standards in research performance. An international consensus exists on how to perform research and what rules should be considered when publishing a scientific paper. Despite this global agreement, in today's "Cross Check Era", too many authors do not give attention to the current standards of systematic research. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to describe these performance standards, the available choices for orthopaedic surgeons and the current learning curve for seasoned teams of researchers and orthopaedic surgeons with more than three decades of experience. These lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the topics that will significantly influence the research development as we arrive at an important globalisation era in orthopaedics and trauma-related research.