OBJECTIVE: To assess a radiologist's detection rate of rib fractures in trauma CT when reading curved planar reformats (CPRs) of the ribs compared to reading standard MPRs. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty trauma CTs (146 males, 74 females) were retrospectively subjected to a software algorithm to generate CPRs of the ribs. Patients were split into two equal groups. Sixteen patients were excluded due to insufficient segmentation, leaving 107 patients in group A and 97 patients in group B. Two radiologists independently evaluated group A using CPRs and group B using standard MPRs. Two different radiologists reviewed both groups with the inverse methods setting. Results were compared to a standard of reference created by two senior radiologists. RESULTS: The reference standard identified 361 rib fractures in 61 patients. Reading CPRs showed a significantly higher overall sensitivity (P < 0.001) for fracture detection than reading standard MPRs, with 80.9% (584/722) and 71.5% (516/722), respectively. Mean reading time was significantly shorter for CPRs (31.3 s) compared to standard MPRs (60.7 s; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using CPRs for the detection of rib fractures accelerates the reading of trauma patient chest CTs, while offering an increased overall sensitivity compared to conventional standard MPRs. KEY POINTS: • In major blunt trauma, rib fractures are diagnosed with Computed Tomography. • Image processing can unfold all ribs into a single plane. • Unfolded ribs can be read twice as fast as axial images. • Unfolding the ribs allows a more accurate diagnosis of rib fractures.
OBJECTIVE: To assess a radiologist's detection rate of rib fractures in trauma CT when reading curved planar reformats (CPRs) of the ribs compared to reading standard MPRs. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty trauma CTs (146 males, 74 females) were retrospectively subjected to a software algorithm to generate CPRs of the ribs. Patients were split into two equal groups. Sixteen patients were excluded due to insufficient segmentation, leaving 107 patients in group A and 97 patients in group B. Two radiologists independently evaluated group A using CPRs and group B using standard MPRs. Two different radiologists reviewed both groups with the inverse methods setting. Results were compared to a standard of reference created by two senior radiologists. RESULTS: The reference standard identified 361 rib fractures in 61 patients. Reading CPRs showed a significantly higher overall sensitivity (P < 0.001) for fracture detection than reading standard MPRs, with 80.9% (584/722) and 71.5% (516/722), respectively. Mean reading time was significantly shorter for CPRs (31.3 s) compared to standard MPRs (60.7 s; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using CPRs for the detection of rib fractures accelerates the reading of traumapatient chest CTs, while offering an increased overall sensitivity compared to conventional standard MPRs. KEY POINTS: • In major blunt trauma, rib fractures are diagnosed with Computed Tomography. • Image processing can unfold all ribs into a single plane. • Unfolded ribs can be read twice as fast as axial images. • Unfolding the ribs allows a more accurate diagnosis of rib fractures.
Authors: Helmut Ringl; Florian Stiassny; Wolfgang Schima; Michael Toepker; Christian Czerny; Gerd Schueller; Ulrika Asenbaum; Julia Furtner; Stefan Hajdu; Wolfgang Serles; Michael Weber; Christian J Herold Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Steve Halligan; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Justine McQuillan; Maria Proud; Gareth Beddoe; Lesley Honeyfield; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Katherine P Andriole; Richard L Morin; Ronald L Arenson; John A Carrino; Bradley J Erickson; Steven C Horii; David W Piraino; Bruce I Reiner; J Anthony Seibert; Eliot Siegel Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2004-11-25 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Abraham H Dachman; Nancy A Obuchowski; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; J Louis Hinshaw; Michael I Frew; Thomas C Winter; Robert L Van Uitert; Senthil Periaswamy; Ronald M Summers; Bruce J Hillman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Philip A Glemser; Michael Pfleiderer; Anna Heger; Jan Tremper; Astrid Krauskopf; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Kathrin Yen; David Simons Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Martin Kolopp; Nicolas Douis; Ayla Urbaneja; Cédric Baumann; Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira; Alain Blum; Laurent Martrille Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Thomas Weikert; Luca Andre Noordtzij; Jens Bremerich; Bram Stieltjes; Victor Parmar; Joshy Cyriac; Gregor Sommer; Alexander Walter Sauter Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Susan C Shelmerdine; Dean Langan; John C Hutchinson; Melissa Hickson; Kerry Pawley; Joseph Suich; Liina Palm; Neil J Sebire; Angela Wade; Owen J Arthurs Journal: Lancet Child Adolesc Health Date: 2018-09-22