PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3880612

Digital subtraction arthrography.

A H Newberg·S M Wetzner
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The technology of digital subtraction image processing was applied as a substitute for conventional arthrographic subtraction techniques in the evaluation of 29 joints in 27 patients. There were 15 total hip replacements, one total knee replacement, eight wrists, three shoulders, and two ankles. Information regarding prosthetic component loosening and ligamentous disruption of carpal bone articulations could be determined with a high degree of accuracy when compared with information gained using conventional radiographic methods. Our results indicate that this method may be a suitable substitute for other arthrographic techniques.

Explore related subjects

ArthrographyHip ProsthesisHumansLigaments, ArticularSubtraction TechniqueWrist JointJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A H Newberg, S M Wetzner. 1985. Digital subtraction arthrography.. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.154.1.3880612

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1995

Congenital perforations of the triangular fibrocartilage of the wrist.

A cadaveric study of the triangular fibrocartilage of the wrist in the foetus and infant revealed a high incidence of congenital perforation. In the second half of the study, wrist arthrography in foetal and infant cadavers with crown-rump length of more than 20 cm followed by dissection of the wrist joints showed good correlation between the two. In 60 cadavers there were 11 with bilateral perforations and five had unilateral perforation. This gave a total of 27 perforations in 120 wrist joints studied.

Arthrography↗
PubMed1995

The classification and assessment of osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis is the commonest rheumatic disease, but despite its high prevalence in the elderly, associated disability and public health costs, there is little understanding of the aetiology of the disease. Questions still remain unanswered: 'what do we mean by the term osteoarthritis?; how do we define it?; how do we classify patients with the disease?; how do we differentiate between cases for population studies, and clinically relevant disease the physician wishes to treat?'. This chapter has demonstrated the considerable advances that have been made over the last thirty years in solving these issues, but we are still lacking a universal definition and classification of the disease. Defining and classifying OA is not an easy task, as it is not a single disease, but rather a spectrum of diseases that are the end result of a number of different processes. However, in order to understand the aetiology and natural course of the disease, and to devise appropriate treatment strategies, correct definition of OA at distinct sites is vital. Radiological site-specific definition of the disease is now recognized as the major tool available in defining OA. There is general consensus that the grading of osteophytes and joint space narrowing at the major sites using validated atlases is an important step forward.

Arthrography↗