OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the ability of dual-energy CT (DECT), compared with MRI, to identify vertebral compression fractures in acute trauma patients. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study included 23 consecutive patients with 32 vertebral fractures who underwent both DECT and MRI of the spine between February 2014 and September 2014. A total of 209 vertebrae were evaluated for the presence of abnormal bone marrow attenuation on DECT and signal on MRI by five experienced radiologists. The specificity, sensitivity, predictive values and intraobserver and interobserver agreements were calculated. RESULTS: MRI revealed a total of 47 vertebrae (22.4% of all vertebrae) and DECT revealed 44 vertebrae (21.0% of all vertebrae) with oedema. Using MRI as the reference standard, DECT had sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value and accuracy of 89.3, 98.7, 95.4, 96.9 and 96.6%, respectively. With respect to establishing the presence of oedema, the interobserver agreement was almost perfect (k = 0.82), and the intraobserver agreement was substantial (k = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Compared with MRI, DECT can provide an accurate demonstration of acute vertebral fractures and can be used as an alternative imaging modality for the assessment of vertebral fractures in patients with contraindications for MRI. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Distinguishing of acute and chronic vertebral compression fracture is important for treatment choices. DECT is very fast compared with MRI and is an alternative imaging modality for the assessment of vertebral fractures in patients with contraindications for MRI.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the ability of dual-energy CT (DECT), compared with MRI, to identify vertebral compression fractures in acute traumapatients. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study included 23 consecutive patients with 32 vertebral fractures who underwent both DECT and MRI of the spine between February 2014 and September 2014. A total of 209 vertebrae were evaluated for the presence of abnormal bone marrow attenuation on DECT and signal on MRI by five experienced radiologists. The specificity, sensitivity, predictive values and intraobserver and interobserver agreements were calculated. RESULTS: MRI revealed a total of 47 vertebrae (22.4% of all vertebrae) and DECT revealed 44 vertebrae (21.0% of all vertebrae) with oedema. Using MRI as the reference standard, DECT had sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value and accuracy of 89.3, 98.7, 95.4, 96.9 and 96.6%, respectively. With respect to establishing the presence of oedema, the interobserver agreement was almost perfect (k = 0.82), and the intraobserver agreement was substantial (k = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Compared with MRI, DECT can provide an accurate demonstration of acute vertebral fractures and can be used as an alternative imaging modality for the assessment of vertebral fractures in patients with contraindications for MRI. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Distinguishing of acute and chronic vertebral compression fracture is important for treatment choices. DECT is very fast compared with MRI and is an alternative imaging modality for the assessment of vertebral fractures in patients with contraindications for MRI.
Authors: Courtney A Coursey; Rendon C Nelson; Daniel T Boll; Erik K Paulson; Lisa M Ho; Amy M Neville; Daniele Marin; Rajan T Gupta; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Radiographics Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Michael M Lell; Stefan G Ruehm; Manuel Kramer; Christoph Panknin; Reza Habibi; Ernst Klotz; Pablo Villablanca Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Simone S Boks; Dammis Vroegindeweij; Bart W Koes; M G Myriam Hunink; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gregor Pache; Bernhard Krauss; Peter Strohm; Ulrich Saueressig; Philipp Blanke; Stefan Bulla; Oliver Schäfer; Peter Helwig; Elmar Kotter; Mathias Langer; Tobias Baumann Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anita A Uppin; Joshua A Hirsch; Luis V Centenera; Bernard A Pfiefer; Artemis G Pazianos; In Sup Choi Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Aleksander Kosmala; Andreas Max Weng; Bernhard Krauss; Stefan Knop; Thorsten Alexander Bley; Bernhard Petritsch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Giovanni Foti; Alberto Beltramello; Giorgio Minerva; Matteo Catania; Massimo Guerriero; Sergio Albanese; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Torsten Diekhoff; Nils Engelhard; Michael Fuchs; Matthias Pumberger; Michael Putzier; Jürgen Mews; Marcus Makowski; Bernd Hamm; Kay-Geert A Hermann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: N Engelhard; K G Hermann; J Greese; M Fuchs; M Pumberger; M Putzier; T Diekhoff Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 2.199