Computed Tomography

  • Richard W. WhitehouseEmail author
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


Measurements relevant to the musculoskeletal system that can be made on CT include distances and angles from the scout view, distances, angles and CT numbers from individual axial sections and more complex three-dimensional distances and angles from separate axial sections or reformatted images. Volumes can be estimated from the measured dimensions of the tissue in question or by summing the product of cross-sectional area measurements and slice spacing. CT number measurement gives rise to tissue density estimation, the accuracy of which can be improved by dual-energy scan techniques.


  1. Aamodt A, Terjesen T, Eine J, Kvistad KA (1995) Femoral anteversion measured by ultrasound and CT: a comparative study. Skelet Radiol 24:105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audenaert EA, Baelde N, Huysse W, Vigneron L, Pattyn C (2011) Development of a three-dimensional detection method of cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. Skelet Radiol 40:921–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaulé PE, Zaragoza E, Motamedi K, Copelan N, Dorey FJ (2005) Three-dimensional computed tomography of the hip in the assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 23:1286–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman L, Mitchell R, Katz D (1987) Ultrasound assessment of femoral anteversion. A comparison with computerised tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69:268–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buerke B, Puesken M, Müter S, Weckesser M, Gerss J, Heindel W, Wessling J (2010) Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT. Am J Roentgenol 195:979–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dähnert W, Bernd W (1986) Computertomographische Bestimmung des Torsionswinkels am Humerus. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 124:46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dandachli W, Kanna V, Richards R, Shah Z, Hall-Craggs M, Witt J (2008) Analysis of cover of the femoral head in normal and dysplastic hips: new CT-based technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90-11:1428–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dandachli W, Ul Islam S, Liu M, Richards R, Hall-Craggs M, Witt J (2009) Three-dimensional CT analysis to determine acetabular retroversion and the implications for the management of femoro-acetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91-8:1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davids JR, Marshall AD, Blocker ER, Frick SL, Blackhurst DW, Skewes E (2003) Femoral anteversion in children with cerebral palsy. Assessment with two and three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubousset J, Wicart P, Pomero V, Barois A, Estournet B (2003) Spinal penetration index: new three-dimensional quantified reference for lordoscoliosis and other spinal deformities. J Orthop Sci 8:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glüer CC, Genant HK (1989) Impact of marrow fat on accuracy of quantitative CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 13:1023–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gollogly S, Smith JT, Campbell RM (2004a) Determining lung volume with three dimensional reconstructions of CT scan data. A pilot study to evaluate the effects of expansion thoracoplasty on children with severe spinal deformities. J Pediatr Orthop 24:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gollogly S, Smith JT, White SK, Firth S, White K (2004b) The volume of lung parenchyma as a function of age: a review of 1050 normal CT scans of the chest with three-dimensional volumetric reconstruction of the pulmonary system. Spine 29:2061–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Günther KP, Kessler S, Tomczak R, Pfeifer P, Puhl W (1996) (femoral anteversion: significance of clinical methods and imaging techniques in the diagnosis in children and adolescents). Title in original lang. Femorale Antetorsion: Stellenwert klinischer und bildgebender Untersuchungsverfahren bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 134:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hohl C, Wildberger JE, Süss C, Thomas C, Mühlenbruch G, Schmidt T, Honnef D, Günther RW, Mahnken AH (2006) Radiation dose reduction to breast and thyroid during MDCT: effectiveness of an in-plane bismuth shield. Acta Radiol 47:562–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keller A, Gunderson R, Reikerås O, Brox JI (2003) Reliability of computed tomography measurements of paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area and density in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 28:1455–1460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lambe NR, Conington J, McLean KA, Navajas EA, Fisher AV, Bünger L (2006) In vivo prediction of internal fat weight in Scottish blackface lambs, using computer tomography. J Anim Breed Genet 123:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGurk M, Whitehouse RW, Taylor PM, Swinson B (1992) Orbital volume measured by a low-dose CT scanning technique. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 21:70–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller PD (2006) Guidelines for the diagnosis of osteoporosis: T-scores vs fractures. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 7:75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller F, Merlo M, Liang Y, Kupcha P, Jamison J, Harcke HT (1993) Femoral version and neck shaft angle. J Pediatr Orthop 13:382–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Müller MJ, Bosy-Westphal A, Kutzner D, Heller M (2002) Metabolically active components of fat-free mass and resting energy expenditure in humans: recent lessons from imaging technologies. Obes Rev 3:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murase T, Oka K, Moritomo H, Goto A, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2008) Three-dimensional corrective osteotomy of malunited fractures of the upper extremity with use of a computer simulation system. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90-A:2375–2389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nickoloff EL, Feldman F, Atherton JV (1988) Bone mineral assessment: new dual energy approach. Radiology 168:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rådegran G, Saltin B (2000) Human femoral artery diameter in relation to knee extensor muscle mass, peak blood flow, and oxygen uptake. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 278:H162–H167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schultz E, Felix R (1978) Phantommessungen zum räumlichen Auflösungsvermögen und zum Partial-Volume-Effect bei der Computertomographie. Rofo 129:673–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schultz E, Lackner K (1980) Die Bestimmung des Volumens von Organen mit der Computertomographie. I. Die Ermittlung von Organquerschnittsflächen unter Berücksichtigung der dabei auftretenden Fehlermöglichkeiten. Rofo 132:672–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Starker M, Hanusek S, Rittmeister M, Thoma W (1998) Validierung computertomographisch gemessener Antetorisonswinkel am Femur. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 136:420–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Togashi K, Kitaura H, Yonetsu K, Yoshida N, Nakamura T (2002) Three-dimensional cephalometry using helical computer tomography: measurement error caused by head inclination. Angle Orthod 72:513–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Whitehouse RW (1991) Computed tomography attenuation measurements for the characterization of hepatic haemangiomas. Br J Radiol 64:1019–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical RadiologyManchester Royal InfirmaryManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations