Comprehensive comparison of dual-energy computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of bone marrow edema and fracture lines in acute vertebral fractures.
Magnetic resonance imaging
Multidetector computed tomography
Radiology
Retrospective study
Spinal fractures
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
19
02
2021
accepted:
19
05
2021
revised:
20
03
2021
pubmed:
4
7
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
3
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare dual-energy CT (DECT) and MRI for assessing presence and extent of traumatic bone marrow edema (BME) and fracture line depiction in acute vertebral fractures. Eighty-eight consecutive patients who underwent dual-source DECT and 3-T MRI of the spine were retrospectively analyzed. Five radiologists assessed all vertebrae for presence and extent of BME and for identification of acute fracture lines on MRI and, after 12 weeks, on DECT series. Additionally, image quality, image noise, and diagnostic confidence for overall diagnosis of acute vertebral fracture were assessed. Quantitative analysis of CT numbers was performed by a sixth radiologist. Two radiologists analyzed MRI and grayscale DECT series to define the reference standard. For assessing BME presence and extent, DECT showed high sensitivity (89% and 84%, respectively) and specificity (98% in both), and similarly high diagnostic confidence compared to MRI (2.30 vs. 2.32; range 0-3) for the detection of BME (p = .72). For evaluating acute fracture lines, MRI achieved high specificity (95%), moderate sensitivity (76%), and a significantly lower diagnostic confidence compared to DECT (2.42 vs. 2.62, range 0-3) (p < .001). A cutoff value of - 0.43 HU provided a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 90% for diagnosing BME, with an overall AUC of 0.96. DECT and MRI provide high diagnostic confidence and image quality for assessing acute vertebral fractures. While DECT achieved high overall diagnostic accuracy in the analysis of BME presence and extent, MRI provided moderate sensitivity and lower confidence for evaluating fracture lines. • In the setting of spinal trauma, dual-energy CT (DECT) is highly accurate in the evaluation of acute vertebral fractures and bone marrow edema presence and extent. • MRI provides moderate sensitivity and lower diagnostic confidence for the depiction of acute fracture lines, when compared to DECT, which might result in potentially inaccurate and underestimated severity assessment of injuries in certain cases when no fracture lines are visible on MRI. • DECT may represent a valid imaging alternative to MRI in specific settings of acute spinal trauma and in follow-up examinations, especially in elderly or unstable patients and in cases of subtle or complex orientated fracture lines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34215940
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08081-8
pii: 10.1007/s00330-021-08081-8
pmc: PMC8660711
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
561-571Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 May;27(5):983-8
pubmed: 16687528
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Jul;81(7):1630-6
pubmed: 21636232
Acad Radiol. 2020 Feb;27(2):227-232
pubmed: 30876711
Invest Radiol. 2018 Jul;53(7):409-416
pubmed: 29489560
Radiology. 2006 Apr;239(1):195-200
pubmed: 16493017
Radiology. 2012 Jul;264(1):164-73
pubmed: 22570505
Radiology. 2016 Dec;281(3):690-707
pubmed: 27870622
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jun;30(6):3393-3400
pubmed: 32055947
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Apr;210(4):842-847
pubmed: 29470155
Radiology. 2016 Aug;280(2):510-9
pubmed: 26928067
Br J Radiol. 2019 Jun;92(1098):20180546
pubmed: 30919651
Eur Radiol. 2021 Jul;31(7):4680-4689
pubmed: 33443599
Radiographics. 2018 Mar-Apr;38(2):586-602
pubmed: 29528816
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jan;30(1):141-150
pubmed: 31350586
Emerg Radiol. 2015 Feb;22(1):25-9
pubmed: 24985783
Radiology. 2010 Aug;256(2):617-24
pubmed: 20551186
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Sep;118:207-214
pubmed: 31439244
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Oct;183(4):949-58
pubmed: 15385286
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Sep;213(3):493-505
pubmed: 31039024
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Aug;469(8):2179-93
pubmed: 21344275
Clin Radiol. 2020 Feb;75(2):156.e11-156.e19
pubmed: 31690450
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jul 15;40(14):E842-8
pubmed: 25946722
Skeletal Radiol. 2014 Apr;43(4):485-92
pubmed: 24445957
Med Phys. 2009 May;36(5):1602-9
pubmed: 19544776
Radiology. 2019 Feb;290(2):446-455
pubmed: 30615548
Radiology. 2017 Jul;284(1):161-168
pubmed: 28240561
Radiology. 2013 Nov;269(2):525-33
pubmed: 23801776
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Radiol Med. 2020 Apr;125(4):384-397
pubmed: 31925704
Neurosurgery. 2009 Apr;64(4):740-4; discussion 744-5
pubmed: 19349832