Literature DB >> 16177409

Distinction of long bone stress fractures from pathologic fractures on cross-sectional imaging: how successful are we?

Laura M Fayad1, Satomi Kawamoto, Ihab R Kamel, David A Bluemke, John Eng, Frank J Frassica, Elliot K Fishman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were to define CT and MRI features that distinguish pathologic fractures from stress fractures and to compare the performance of CT and MRI with radiography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers retrospectively reviewed 45 MR images, 37 CT scans, and 43 radiographs in 59 patients (30 biopsy-proven pathologic fractures and 29 stress fractures followed to resolution). The features observed on MRI were abnormal bone marrow (well-defined, ill-defined); intracortical, periosteal, or muscle T1 or T2 signal; endosteal scalloping; and a soft-tissue mass. The features seen on CT were marrow abnormality and character (well-defined, ill-defined, permeative, moth-eaten), endosteal scalloping, periosteal reaction (benign, aggressive), and a soft-tissue mass. Reviewers rated their confidence for diagnosing a pathologic fracture on a 1-3 scale (< 50%, 50-95%, > 95% sure, respectively) with each technique. Performance of each technique was defined by reviewer accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az); the frequency with which the MRI and CT features were associated with pathologic and stress fractures was calculated.
RESULTS: For both reviewers, accuracy for differentiating pathologic from stress fractures was highest on MRI (accuracy/Az: reviewer 1, 98%/0.97; reviewer 2, 93%/0.99); CT (reviewer 1, 88%/0.83; reviewer 2, 82%/0.90) was less accurate than radiography (reviewer 1, 94%/0.98; reviewer 2, 88%/0.96). On MRI, pathologic fractures compared with stress fractures exhibited well-defined T1 marrow signal (83% vs 7%, respectively; p < 0.001), endosteal scalloping (58% vs 0%, p < 0.001), muscle signal (83% vs 48%, p = 0.026), and a soft-tissue mass (67% vs 0%, p < 0.001). On CT, pathologic fractures compared with stress fractures exhibited marrow abnormality (84% vs 17%, respectively; p = 0.001), endosteal scalloping (44% vs 0%, p = 0.006), and aggressive periosteal reaction (36% vs 0%, p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: MRI is useful for distinguishing pathologic from stress fractures, especially after inconclusive radiographic findings. Specifically, pathologic fractures exhibit well-defined T1 marrow alterations, endosteal scalloping, and adjacent soft-tissue abnormalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16177409     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.04.0950

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  15 in total

Review 1.  Bone stress injuries of the leg in athletes.

Authors:  Michele Gaeta; Achille Mileto; Giorgio Ascenti; Gianmarco Bernava; Alessandra Murabito; Fabio Minutoli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Spontaneous talar and calcaneal fracture in rheumatoid arthritis: a case report.

Authors:  Antonio Spina; Alberto Clemente; Chiara Vancini; Majlinda Fejzo; Paolo Campioni
Journal:  J Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2011-07-01

Review 3.  Stress fractures of the foot and ankle, part 2: site-specific etiology, imaging, and treatment, and differential diagnosis.

Authors:  Jacob C Mandell; Bharti Khurana; Stacy E Smith
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-03-25       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  Skeletal complications of bisphosphonate use: what the radiologist should know.

Authors:  A E Haworth; J Webb
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in trauma patients with suspected chronic osteomyelitis.

Authors:  Anna Hartmann; Karim Eid; Claudio Dora; Otmar Trentz; Gustav K von Schulthess; Katrin D M Stumpe
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-11-29       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Musculoskeletal pitfalls and pseudotumours in the pelvis: a pictorial review for body imagers.

Authors:  S Ghazizadeh; E W Foss; R Didier; A Fung; D M Panicek; F V Coakley
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology.

Authors:  William Palmer; Laura Bancroft; Fiona Bonar; Jung-Ah Choi; Anne Cotten; James F Griffith; Philip Robinson; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Compliance with established guidelines for the radiological reporting of atypical femoral fractures.

Authors:  Katrina Harborne; Jonathan M Hazlehurst; Hari Shanmugaratnam; Samuel Pearson; Alison Doyle; Neil J Gittoes; Surabhi Choudhary; Rachel K Crowley
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 9.  The role of MRI in image-guided needle biopsy of focal bone and soft tissue neoplasms.

Authors:  M M Y Khoo; A Saifuddin
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-05-04       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Stress fractures in elderly patients.

Authors:  Stefan Breer; Matthias Krause; Robert P Marshall; Ralf Oheim; Michael Amling; Florian Barvencik
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.