BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
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 Kickuth, R
Right arrow Articles by Kirchner, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kickuth, R
Right arrow Articles by Kirchner, J

Stereoscopic 3D CT vs standard 3D CT in the classification of acetabular fractures: an experimental study

R Kickuth, MD 1 G Hartung, MD 2 U Laufer, MD 1 C Gruening, MD 2 C Stueckle, MD 1 D Liermann, MD 1 and J Kirchner, MD 1

Departments of 1 Radiology and 2 Surgery, Marienhospital Herne, University of Bochum, Hoelkeskampring 40, D-44625 Herne, Germany



View larger version (94K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1.
 


View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Composite receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of radiologists for standard 3D CT () and stereoscopic 3D CT (---) using (a) unshaded and (b) shaded volume rendering. The composite ROC curves for standard 3D CT are a little bit further to the upper left than are those of stereoscopic 3D CT, but the relative trends among curves are similar.

 


View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Composite receiver operating characteristic curves of surgeons for the classification of artificial acetabular fractures with standard 3D CT () and stereoscopic 3D CT (---) using (a) unshaded and (b) shaded volume rendering. The curves were not significantly different.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2002 by the British Institute of Radiology.