OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity and image quality of chest radiography (CXR) with or without dual-energy subtracted (ES) bone images in the detection of rib fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 39 patients with 204 rib fractures and 24 subjects with no fractures were examined with a single exposure dual-energy subtraction digital radiography system. Three blinded readers first evaluated the non-subtracted posteroanterior and lateral chest radiographs alone, and 3 months later they evaluated the non-subtracted images together with the subtracted posteroanterior bone images. The locations of rib fractures were registered with confidence levels on a 3-grade scale. Image quality was rated on a 5-point scale. Marks by readers were compared with fracture localizations in CT as a standard of reference. RESULTS: The sensivity for fracture detection using both methods was very similar (34.3% with standard CXR and 33.5% with ES-CXR, p=0.92). At the patient level, both sensitivity (71.8%) and specificity (92.9%) with or without ES were identical. Diagnostic confidence was not significantly different (2.61 with CXR and 2.75 with ES-CXR, p=0.063). Image quality with ES was rated higher than that on standard CXR (4.08 vs. 3.74, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a better image quality, adding ES bone images to standard radiographs of the chest does not provide better sensitivity or improved diagnostic confidence in the detection of rib fractures.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity and image quality of chest radiography (CXR) with or without dual-energy subtracted (ES) bone images in the detection of rib fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 39 patients with 204 rib fractures and 24 subjects with no fractures were examined with a single exposure dual-energy subtraction digital radiography system. Three blinded readers first evaluated the non-subtracted posteroanterior and lateral chest radiographs alone, and 3 months later they evaluated the non-subtracted images together with the subtracted posteroanterior bone images. The locations of rib fractures were registered with confidence levels on a 3-grade scale. Image quality was rated on a 5-point scale. Marks by readers were compared with fracture localizations in CT as a standard of reference. RESULTS: The sensivity for fracture detection using both methods was very similar (34.3% with standard CXR and 33.5% with ES-CXR, p=0.92). At the patient level, both sensitivity (71.8%) and specificity (92.9%) with or without ES were identical. Diagnostic confidence was not significantly different (2.61 with CXR and 2.75 with ES-CXR, p=0.063). Image quality with ES was rated higher than that on standard CXR (4.08 vs. 3.74, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a better image quality, adding ES bone images to standard radiographs of the chest does not provide better sensitivity or improved diagnostic confidence in the detection of rib fractures.