Abstract
Objective
To compare the diagnostic value of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and conventional radiography (CR) after acute small bone or joint trauma.
Materials and methods
Between March 2013 and January 2014, 231 patients with recent small bone or joint trauma underwent CR and subsequent CBCT. CR and CBCT examinations were independently assessed by two readers, blinded to the result of the other modality. The total number of fractures as well as the number of complex fractures were compared, and inter- and intraobserver agreement for CBCT was calculated. In addition, radiation doses and evaluation times for both modalities were noted and statistically compared.
Results
Fracture detection on CBCT increased by 35 % and 37 % for reader 1 and reader 2, respectively, and identification of complex fractures increased by 236 % and 185 %. Interobserver agreement for CBCT was almost perfect, as was intraobserver agreement for reader 1. The intraobserver agreement for reader 2 was substantial. Radiation doses and evaluation time were significantly higher for CBCT.
Conclusion
CBCT detects significantly more small bone and joint fractures, in particular complex fractures, than CR. In the majority of cases, the clinical implication of the additionally detected fractures is limited, but in some patients (e.g., fracture-dislocations), the management is significantly influenced by these findings. As the radiation dose for CBCT substantially exceeds that of CR, we suggest adhering to CR as the first-line examination after small bone and joint trauma and keeping CBCT for patients with clinical-radiographic discordance or suspected complex fractures in need of further (preoperative) assessment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Webb S. Comments, with reply, on: 'Tomographic reconstruction from experimentally obtained cone-beam projections' by S. Webb et al. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1988;7:73–4.
Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10:1–7.
Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, et al. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose cone beam CT. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56:413–7.
Dalchow CV, Weber AL, Yanagihara N, et al. Digital volume tomography: radiologic examinations of the temporal bone. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:416–23.
Dalchow CV, Weber AL, Bien S, et al. Value of digital volume tomography in patients with conductive hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;263:92–9.
Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Aschendorff A, et al. Rotational tomography of the normal and reconstructed middle ear in temporal bones: an experimental study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;264:345–51.
De Cock J, Mermuys K, Goubau J, Van Petegem S, Houthoofd B, Casselman JW. Cone-beam computed tomography: a new low dose, high resolution imaging technique of the wrist, presentation of three cases with technique. Skelet Radiol. 2012;41:93–6.
Faccioli N, Foti G, Barillari M, Atzei A, Mucelli RP. Finger fractures imaging: accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and multislice computed tomography. Skelet Radiol. 2010;39:1087–95.
Koskinen SK, Haapamäki VV, Salo J, et al. CT arthrography of the wrist using a novel, mobile, dedicated extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT). Skelet Radiol. 2013;42:649–57.
Hiwatashi A, Yoshiura T, Noguchi T, et al. Usefulness of cone-beam CT before and after percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1401–5.
De Groote J, Dewaele T, Defreyne L. Conebeam-CT and fluoroscopy guided percutaneous absolute alcohol sclerotherapy of aneurysmal bone cysts—a single centre experience. JBR-BTR. 2014;97(4):270.
Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, Part I: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1088–95.
Zbijewski W, De Jean P, Prakash P, et al. A dedicated cone-beam CT system for musculoskeletal extremities imaging: design, optimization, and initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2011;38:4700–13.
Mattila KT, Kankare JA, Kortesniemi M, et al. (2011) Cone beam CT for extremity imaging. EPOS Abstract, ECR 2011, Vienna March 3–7. Doi:10.1594/ecr2011/c-0297
Biswas D, Bible JE, Bohan M, Simpson AK, Whang PG, Grauer JN. Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1882–9.
Leng S, Zambelli J, Tolakanahalli R, et al. Streaking artifacts reduction in four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography. Med Phys. 2008;35:4649–59.
Pasquet G, Cavezian R. Diagnostic means using oral and maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: results. J Radiol. 2009;90:618–23.
Zeitoun F, Dubert T, Frot B, Laredo JD. Imaging of the wrist and of the hand: what is the best modality? J Radiol. 2001;82:335–52.
Schreibman KL, Freeland A, Gilula LA, Yin Y. Imaging of the hand and wrist. Orthop Clin N Am. 1997;28:537–82.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Smet, E., De Praeter, G., Verstraete, K.L.A. et al. Direct comparison of conventional radiography and cone-beam CT in small bone and joint trauma. Skeletal Radiol 44, 1111–1117 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2127-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2127-3