TY - JOUR

T1 - Dual-Energy CT for Suspected Radiographically Negative Wrist Fractures

T2 - A Prospective Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study

AU - Müller, Felix C

AU - Gosvig, Kasper K

AU - Børgesen, Henrik

AU - Gade, Jesper S

AU - Brejnebøl, Mathias

AU - Rodell, Anders

AU - Nèmery, Michel

AU - Boesen, Mikael

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Background Patients with wrist trauma and negative findings on radiographs often undergo additional MRI examinations to assess for radiographically occult fractures. Dual-energy CT may be more readily available than MRI in some settings. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of dual-energy CT in helping detect bone marrow edema and fracture in participants with wrist trauma and clinical suspicion of a wrist fracture but with negative findings on radiographs. Materials and Methods Adults were prospectively enrolled between January 2018 and November 2018. Wrists were examined with dual-energy CT and MRI, and images were read by four readers who were blinded to clinical information. The presence of bone marrow edema and fracture was rated per bone. The reference standard for bone marrow edema was the combined reading of MRI scans. The reference standard for fracture was a combined reading of MRI and dual-energy CT scans. A fifth radiologist arbitrated results in case of discrepancies. Diagnostic test accuracy was calculated per reader and for readers combined using exact binomial tests. Results Forty-six participants (mean age, 47 years ± 19 [standard deviation]; 24 men [52%]) were enrolled, and 750 bones (50 wrists) were assessed. Dual-energy CT had an average sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%, 99%; 31 of 33 wrists) and specificity of 65% (95% CI: 38%, 86%; 11 of 17 wrists) in the detection of wrists with bone marrow edema and a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI: 55%, 81%; 36 of 52 bones) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI: 97%, 99%; 682 of 696 bones) in the detection of edema in individual bones. MRI had a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 63%, 91%; 28 of 35 wrists) and a specificity of 93% (95% CI: 68%, 100%; 14 of 15 wrists) in helping detect wrists with fractures. Dual-energy CT had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI: 77%, 98%; 32 of 35 wrists) and a specificity of 87% (95% CI: 60%, 98%; 53 of 60 wrists) in helping detect wrists with fractures. McNemar tests showed no significant differences between MRI and dual-energy CT (P = .07 to >.99) for all readers. Conclusion Dual-energy CT had a high sensitivity and a moderate specificity in the detection of bone marrow edema of the wrist. Dual-energy CT had high sensitivity and specificity in depicting fractures of the wrist in patients with suspected wrist fractures and negative findings on radiographs. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Fukuda in this issue.

AB - Background Patients with wrist trauma and negative findings on radiographs often undergo additional MRI examinations to assess for radiographically occult fractures. Dual-energy CT may be more readily available than MRI in some settings. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of dual-energy CT in helping detect bone marrow edema and fracture in participants with wrist trauma and clinical suspicion of a wrist fracture but with negative findings on radiographs. Materials and Methods Adults were prospectively enrolled between January 2018 and November 2018. Wrists were examined with dual-energy CT and MRI, and images were read by four readers who were blinded to clinical information. The presence of bone marrow edema and fracture was rated per bone. The reference standard for bone marrow edema was the combined reading of MRI scans. The reference standard for fracture was a combined reading of MRI and dual-energy CT scans. A fifth radiologist arbitrated results in case of discrepancies. Diagnostic test accuracy was calculated per reader and for readers combined using exact binomial tests. Results Forty-six participants (mean age, 47 years ± 19 [standard deviation]; 24 men [52%]) were enrolled, and 750 bones (50 wrists) were assessed. Dual-energy CT had an average sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%, 99%; 31 of 33 wrists) and specificity of 65% (95% CI: 38%, 86%; 11 of 17 wrists) in the detection of wrists with bone marrow edema and a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI: 55%, 81%; 36 of 52 bones) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI: 97%, 99%; 682 of 696 bones) in the detection of edema in individual bones. MRI had a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 63%, 91%; 28 of 35 wrists) and a specificity of 93% (95% CI: 68%, 100%; 14 of 15 wrists) in helping detect wrists with fractures. Dual-energy CT had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI: 77%, 98%; 32 of 35 wrists) and a specificity of 87% (95% CI: 60%, 98%; 53 of 60 wrists) in helping detect wrists with fractures. McNemar tests showed no significant differences between MRI and dual-energy CT (P = .07 to >.99) for all readers. Conclusion Dual-energy CT had a high sensitivity and a moderate specificity in the detection of bone marrow edema of the wrist. Dual-energy CT had high sensitivity and specificity in depicting fractures of the wrist in patients with suspected wrist fractures and negative findings on radiographs. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Fukuda in this issue.

KW - Adult

KW - Female

KW - Fractures, Bone/diagnostic imaging

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection/methods

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods

KW - Wrist/diagnostic imaging

KW - Wrist Injuries/diagnostic imaging

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2020192701

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2020192701

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32662760

VL - 296

SP - 596

EP - 602

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -