Case Control Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Orthop. Jul 18, 2016; 7(7): 426-433
Published online Jul 18, 2016. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i7.426
Table 2 Comparison of computerized tomography based and magnetic resonance imaging based patient specific blocks
Computerized tomography based blocksMagnetic resonance imaging based blocks
Time for studyLesser (approximately 5 min)Longer (approximately 45 min)
CostEconomicalCostlier
Radiation exposureUses ionizing radiation. But focused hip-knee-ankle computerized tomography scanogram reduces exposure to 5 mSv (equal to yearly background exposure)Does not use ionizing radiation
AvailabilityEasily availableNot available at all centers
Patient turn overUseful for high patient turnover centersNot suitable for high patient turnover center
ContraindicationCan be used in patient with any metal prosthesis in situCannot be used in patient with metal prosthesis or cardiac pacemaker in situ
Based onBony landmarksCartilage
AccuracyComparableComparable
Initial infrastructure set up costLower as compared to MRIHigh, non affordable for low volume centres
ClaustrophobiaNo contraindicationCan not be performed in claustrophobic patients