Thoracolumbar spine fractures in patients who have sustained severe trauma: depiction with multi-detector row CT

PURPOSE: To determine if multi–detector row computed tomography (CT) can replace conventional radiography and be performed alone in severe trauma patients for the depiction of thoracolumbar spine fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive severe trauma patients who underwent conventional radiography of the thoracolumbar spine as well as thoracoabdominal multi–detector row CT were prospectively identified. Conventional radiographs were reviewed independently by three radiologists and two orthopedic surgeons; CT images were reviewed by three radiologists. Reviewers were blinded both to one another’s reviews and to the results of initial evaluation. Presence, location, and stability of fractures, as well as quality of reviewed images, were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed to determine sensitivity and interobserver agreement for each procedure, with results of clinical and radiologic follow-up as the standard of reference. The time to perform each examination and the radiation dose involved were evaluated. A resource cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven fractured vertebrae were diagnosed in 26 patients. Twelve patients had unstable spine fractures. Mean sensitivity and interobserver agreement, respectively, for detection of unstable fractures were 97.2% and 0.951 for multi–detector row CT and 33.3% and 0.368 for conventional radiography. The median times to perform a conventional radiographic and a multi–detector row CT examination, respectively, were 33 and 40 minutes. Effective radiation doses at conventional radiography of the spine and thoracoabdominal multi–detector row CT, respectively, were 6.36 mSv and 19.42 mSv. Multi–detector row CT enabled identification of 146 associated traumatic lesions. The costs of conventional radiography and multi–detector row CT, respectively, were $145 and $880 per patient. CONCLUSION: Multi–detector row CT is a better examination for depicting spine fractures than conventional radiography. It can replace conventional radiography and be performed alone in patients who have sustained severe trauma.

How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine or hip? A cost-effectiveness analysis

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is widely accepted as the reference method for diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis and for assessment of fracture risk, especially at hip. However, axial-DXA is not suitable for mass screening, because it is usually confined to specialized centers. We propose a two-step diagnostic approach to postmenopausal osteoporosis: the first step, using an inexpensive, widely available screening technique, aims at risk stratification in postmenopausal women; the second step, DXA of spine and hip is applied only to potentially osteoporotic women preselected on the basis of the screening measurement. In a group of 110 healthy postmenopausal woman, the capability of various peripheral bone measurement techniques to predict osteoporosis at spine and/or hip (T-score < -2.5SD using DXA) was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: radiographic absorptiometry of phalanges (RA), ultrasonometry at calcaneus (QUS. CALC), tibia (SOS.TIB), and phalanges (SOS.PHAL). Thirty-three women had osteoporosis at spine and/or hip with DXA. Areas under the ROC curves were 0.84 for RA, 0.83 for QUS.CALC, 0.77 for SOS.PHAL (p < 0.04 vs RA) and 0.74 for SOS.TIB (p < 0.02 vs RA and p = 0.05 vs QUS.CALC). For levels of sensitivity of 90%, the respective specificities were 67% (RA), 64% (QUS.CALC), 48% (SOS.PHAL), and 39% (SOS.TIB). In a cost-effective two-step, the price of the first step should not exceed 54% (RA), 51% (QUS.CALC), 42% (SOS.PHAL), and 25% (SOS.TIB). In conclusion, RA, QUS.CALC, SOS.PHAL, and SOS.TIB may be useful to preselect postmenopausal women in whom axial DXA is indicated to confirm/exclude osteoporosis at spine or hip.