dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.creatorCosta de Freitas, Ricardo Miguel
dc.creatorAndrade, Celi Santos
dc.creatorMendes Pereira Caldas, Jose Guilherme
dc.creatorKanas, Alexandre Fligelman
dc.creatorCabral, Richard Halti
dc.creatorTsunemi, Miriam Harumi
dc.creatorCervantes Rodriguez, Hernan Joel
dc.creatorRabbani, Said Rahnamaye
dc.date2015-10-21T13:10:54Z
dc.date2016-10-25T20:59:53Z
dc.date2015-10-21T13:10:54Z
dc.date2016-10-25T20:59:53Z
dc.date2015-05-01
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-06T08:59:16Z
dc.date.available2017-04-06T08:59:16Z
dc.identifierSpine Journal. New York: Elsevier Science Inc, v. 15, n. 5, p. 992-999, 2015.
dc.identifier1529-9430
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/128552
dc.identifierhttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/128552
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.01.017
dc.identifierWOS:000353626100031
dc.identifierhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1529943015000339
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/939108
dc.descriptionBACKGROUND CONTEXT: New spinal interventions or implants have been tested on ex vivo or in vivo porcine spines, as they are readily available and have been accepted as a comparable model to human cadaver spines. Imaging-guided interventional procedures of the spine are mostly based on fluoroscopy or, still, on multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are also available methods to guide interventional procedures. Although some MDCT data from porcine spines are available in the literature, validation of the measurements on CBCT and MRI is lacking.PURPOSE: To describe and compare the anatomical measurements accomplished with MDCT, CBCT, and MRI of lumbar porcine spines to determine if CBCT and MRI are also useful methods for experimental studies.STUDY DESIGN: An experimental descriptive-comparative study.METHODS: Sixteen anatomical measurements of an individual vertebra from six lumbar porcine spines (n=36 vertebrae) were compared with their MDCT, CBCT, and MRI equivalents. Comparisons were made for the absolute values of the parameters. RESULTS: Similarities were found in all imaging methods. Significant correlation (p<.05) was observed with all variables except those that included cartilaginous tissue from the end plates when the anatomical study was compared with the imaging methods.CONCLUSIONS: The CBCT and MRI provided imaging measurements of the lumbar porcine spines that were similar to the anatomical and MDCT data, and they can be useful for specific experimental research studies.
dc.descriptionFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relationSpine Journal
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectAnatomy
dc.subjectPorcine
dc.subjectLumbar spine
dc.subjectCone-beam computed tomography
dc.subjectMultidetector computed tomography
dc.subjectMagnetic resonance imaging
dc.titleValidation of cone-beam computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the porcine spine: a comparative study with multidetector computed tomography and anatomical specimens
dc.typeOtro


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución