Research ArticleImaging

Value of a Lower-Limb Immobilization Device for Optimization of SPECT/CT Image Fusion

Joana do Mar F. Machado, Marina S. Monteiro, Victor Fernandes Vieira, Jean-Aybert Collinot, John O. Prior, Lina Vieira and José A. Pires-Jorge
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology June 2015, 43 (2) 98-102; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.114.145771

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • FIGURE 1.
    FIGURE 1.

    (A) Dedicated support for ankle and foot for SPECT/CT acquisitions. (B) Foot is well fixed and retains aligned position thanks to comfortable cushions.

  • FIGURE 2.
    FIGURE 2.

    The 7 anatomic landmarks used to quantify misalignment between CT and SPECT images. A = tibia; B = fibula; C = medial malleolus; D = lateral malleolus; E = insertion of the Achilles tendon; F = tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal; G = distal phalanx of great toe.

  • FIGURE 3.
    FIGURE 3.

    Example of anatomic landmark of left distal phalanx of great toe in patients with (A) and without (B) support. From left to right are shown CT, SPECT, and SPECT/CT fusion images.

  • FIGURE 4.
    FIGURE 4.

    Box plot showing distribution of absolute difference |SPECT–CT| (mm) in groups of patients without and with support (box represents median, and quartiles and whiskers show 10th and 90th percentiles). Dashed line is drawn at 5 mm (representing the size of a SPECT voxel), above which 32% (45/140) of measurements were larger without support and only 12% (17/140) with support (P < 0.001).

  • FIGURE 5.
    FIGURE 5.

    (A) Mean absolute difference |SPECT–CT| (mm) according to landmarks A–G (Fig. 2) for left and right foot without and with support. (B) Same mean absolute difference |SPECT–CT| (mm) for patients 1–10 without and with support.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords