Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 103–108 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated MRI protocol for detecting radiographically occult hip and pelvis fractures in the elderly

  • Andrew B. Ross
  • Brian Y. Chan
  • Paul H. Yi
  • Michael D. Repplinger
  • David J. Vanness
  • Kenneth S. Lee
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated, two-sequence MRI protocol using limited pulse sequences for the detection of radiographically occult hip and pelvis fractures in the elderly compared to the complete MRI examination.

Materials and methods

One hundred and eleven consecutive emergency department patients age 65 or older who had undergone MRI to evaluate for clinically suspected hip fracture after negative radiographs were included in the study. The large field-of-view coronal T1 and STIR sequences were isolated from the complete six-sequence MRI protocol and reviewed independently in a blinded fashion by two musculoskeletal fellowship-trained radiologists who recorded presence or absence of fractures of the proximal femora or pelvis, fracture type, and presence or absence of soft tissue injury. Test accuracy was calculated with 95% confidence intervals and accuracy of fracture classification for the abbreviated protocol was compared to that made on the basis of the full exam.

Results

For proximal femoral fractures, the abbreviated protocol had a pooled sensitivity and specificity for the two readers of 100 and 97%, respectively. For pelvic fractures, sensitivity was 92% and specificity was 98%. The kappa coefficient for fracture classification was 0.90 for reader 1 and 0.88 for reader 2, indicating excellent agreement for both readers in fracture classification compared to the classification made based on the complete MRI protocol.

Conclusions

An abbreviated MRI protocol that includes only coronal T1 and STIR sequences maintains high sensitivity and specificity for hip and pelvis fracture detection and fracture classification.

Keywords

Osteoporotic fractures Hip fractures Magnetic resonance imaging Sensitivity and specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Society of Skeletal Radiology for the support of this research with the SSR Seed Grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no related conflicts of interest. KL reports unrelated grant funding from the National Basketball Association, General Electric, RSNA Scholar Grant (RSCH1317), and Mitek and unrelated royalty income from Elsevier.

References

  1. 1.
    Brauer CA, Coca-Perraillon M, Cutler DM, Rosen AB. Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1573–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(3):465–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stevens J, Rudd R. The impact of decreasing US hip fracture rates on future hip fracture estimates. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(10):2725–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khan SK, Kalra S, Khanna A, Thiruvengada MM, Parker MJ. Timing of surgery for hip fractures: a systematic review of 52 published studies involving 291,413 patients. Injury. 2009;40(7):692–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger PE, Ofstein RA, Jackson DW, Morrison DS, Silvino N. Amador R. MRI demonstration of radiographically occult fractures: what have we been missing? Radiographics. 1989;9(3):407–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haubro M, Stougaard C, Torfing T, Overgaard S. Sensitivity and specificity of CT-and MRI-scanning in evaluation of occult fracture of the proximal femur. Injury. 2015;46(8):1557–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hakkarinen DK, Banh KV, Hendey GW. Magnetic resonance imaging identifies occult hip fractures missed by 64-slice computed tomography. J Emerg Med. 2012;43(2):303–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henes F, Nüchtern J, Groth M, Habermann C, Regier M, Rueger J, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomography in the detection of pelvic fractures. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(9):2337–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ward RJ, Weissman BN, Kransdorf MJ, Adler R, Appel M, Bancroft LW, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria acute hip pain—suspected fracture. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(2):114–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khoury N, Birjawi G, Chaaya M, Hourani M. Use of limited MR protocol (coronal STIR) in the evaluation of patients with hip pain. Skelet Radiol. 2003;32(10):567–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khurana B, Okanobo H, Ossiani M, Ledbetter S, Dulaimy KA, Sodickson A. Abbreviated MRI for patients presenting to the emergency department with hip pain. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):W581–W8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2015;277(3):826–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landis JR. Koch GG. A review of statistical methods in the analysis of data arising from observer reliability studies (part I). Statistica Neerlandica. 1975;29(3):101–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galloway HR, Meikle GR, Despois M. Patterns of injury in patients with radiographic occult fracture of neck of femur as determined by magnetic resonance imaging. Australas Radiol. 2004;48(1):21–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collin D, Geijer M, Göthlin JH. Prevalence of exclusively and concomitant pelvic fractures at magnetic resonance imaging of suspect and occult hip fractures. Emerg Radiol. 2016;23(1):17–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Casaletto JA, Gatt R. Post-operative mortality related to waiting time for hip fracture surgery. Injury. 2004;35(2):114–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clague JE, Craddock E, Andrew G, Horan MA, Pendleton N. Predictors of outcome following hip fracture. Admission time predicts length of stay and in-hospital mortality. Injury. 2002;33(1):1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yun BJ, Myriam Hunink M, Prabhakar AM, Heng M, Liu SW, Qudsi R, et al. Diagnostic imaging strategies for occult hip fractures: a decision and cost–effectiveness analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23(10):1161–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gill S, Smith J, Fox R, Chesser T. Investigation of occult hip fractures: the use of CT and MRI. Sci World J. 2013;2013.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schor JD, Levkoff SE, Lipsitz LA, Reilly CH, Cleary PD, Rowe JW, et al. Risk factors for delirium in hospitalized elderly. JAMA. 1992;267(6):827–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rankey D, Leach JL, Leach SD. Emergency MRI utilization trends at a tertiary care academic medical center: baseline data. Acad Radiol. 2008;15(4):438–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Wisconsin Madison School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of Wisconsin Madison School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Population Health SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin Madison School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations