-
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg · Apr 2020
Dual-energy CT as an innovative method for diagnosing fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: a retrospective comparison with MRI as the gold standard.
- Hans-Georg Palm, Patricia Lang, Carsten Hackenbroch, Lukas Sailer, and Benedikt Friemert.
- Department of Trauma Surgery and Orthopaedics, Bundeswehr Hospital Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 40, 89081, Ulm, Germany. mail@professor-palm.de.
- Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Apr 1; 140 (4): 473-480.
IntroductionAs the average age of society increases, so does the number of cases of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can visualise associated oedema and is thus the gold standard for diagnosing such fractures. MRI, however, is costly, not always available, and involves certain exclusion criteria. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) appears to be a promising alternative. It is unclear, however, whether it could be used for diagnosing FFP with similar sensitivity/specificity. The aim of our study was thus to compare conventional CT and DECT with MRI in cases of suspected FFP.Materials And MethodsA total of 46 patients with suspected FFP underwent MRI, CT and DECT scans. There were three comparison groups for each of these patients: conventional CT image analysis without dual-energy modification (Arm 1), DECT analysis (Arm 2) and MRI as the gold standard (Arm 3). Diagnosis and FFP classification were performed by a radiologist in random order and without clinical information. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional CT and DECT were calculated in comparison with MRI as the reference standard.ResultsWith 100% sensitivity and specificity, DECT is on par with MRI when it comes to diagnosing fragility fractures of the pelvis and is superior to conventional CT (90.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity). In terms of classification as well, there were no differences between DECT and MRI. On conventional CT, on the other hand, 16 patients were classified differently than they were on MRI.ConclusionsOur study shows DECT to be reliable and superior to conventional CT in terms of oedema detection and specific fracture classification in FFP. DECT thus combines the advantages of conventional CT (good visualisation of bone matter) and MRI (medullary cavity and visualisation of occult fractures).
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.