Martin Kolopp1, Nicolas Douis2, Ayla Urbaneja2, Cédric Baumann3, Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira2, Alain Blum2, Laurent Martrille4. 1. Service de médecine légale, CHRU de Nancy, rue du Morvan, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. martin.kolopp@gmail.com. 2. Service d'imagerie Guilloz, CHRU de Nancy, 29 avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 54000, Nancy, France. 3. Plateforme d'Aide à la Recherche Clinique (PARC), UMDS, CHRU de Nancy, rue du Morvan, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 4. Service de médecine légale, CHRU de Nancy, rue du Morvan, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the OpenRib software against the gold standard of autopsy in the detection of rib fractures. The secondary objective was to measure inter-rater agreement between each radiological reader. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six subjects who underwent postmortem CT and autopsy were included in this study. Rib fractures were first assessed during the autopsy by carefully dissecting and examining each rib. They were also independently evaluated by three readers using OpenRib software. This software produces from postmortem CT images a reformat of the rib cage and a display of all ribs in a single plane. Each reader was asked to determine if the rib was fractured and, if so, whether the fracture was single or multiple. RESULTS: After exclusions, 649 ribs were included in the statistical analysis. The two readers with a similar level of experience showed a satisfactory inter-rater agreement and a sensitivity of 0.73 and 0.83 with a specificity of 0.95 and 0.91. However, the experienced reader diagnosed significantly more fractures than the autopsy and the other two readers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of automatic rib unfolding software in postmortem CT allows an efficient and accurate assessment of rib fractures and enables the diagnosis of fractures that cannot be detected during a standard autopsy. For now, this method seems to be the simplest that can be routinely performed; however, it requires training time in order to be sufficiently effective.
OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the OpenRib software against the gold standard of autopsy in the detection of rib fractures. The secondary objective was to measure inter-rater agreement between each radiological reader. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six subjects who underwent postmortem CT and autopsy were included in this study. Rib fractures were first assessed during the autopsy by carefully dissecting and examining each rib. They were also independently evaluated by three readers using OpenRib software. This software produces from postmortem CT images a reformat of the rib cage and a display of all ribs in a single plane. Each reader was asked to determine if the rib was fractured and, if so, whether the fracture was single or multiple. RESULTS: After exclusions, 649 ribs were included in the statistical analysis. The two readers with a similar level of experience showed a satisfactory inter-rater agreement and a sensitivity of 0.73 and 0.83 with a specificity of 0.95 and 0.91. However, the experienced reader diagnosed significantly more fractures than the autopsy and the other two readers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of automatic rib unfolding software in postmortem CT allows an efficient and accurate assessment of rib fractures and enables the diagnosis of fractures that cannot be detected during a standard autopsy. For now, this method seems to be the simplest that can be routinely performed; however, it requires training time in order to be sufficiently effective.
Authors: Georg Bier; Christoph Schabel; Ahmed Othman; Malte N Bongers; Jörg Schmehl; Hendrik Ditt; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg; Mike Notohamiprodjo Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-07-19 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Helmut Ringl; Mathias Lazar; Michael Töpker; Ramona Woitek; Helmut Prosch; Ulrika Asenbaum; Csilla Balassy; Daniel Toth; Michael Weber; Stefan Hajdu; Grzegorz Soza; Andreas Wimmer; Thomas Mang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Peter Dankerl; Hannes Seuss; Stephan Ellmann; Alexander Cavallaro; Michael Uder; Matthias Hammon Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Marius Horger; Hendrick Ditt; Shu Liao; Katja Weisel; Jan Fritz; Wolfgang M Thaiss; Sascha Kaufmann; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christopher Kloth Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.173