Comparisons of Diagnosis for Occult Fractures with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computerized Tomography
Objective-To study comparisons of diagnosis for occult fractures with nuclear magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. Methods-Seventy six cases of patients with bone fracture including 45 males and 31 females were recruited in this study. And the data of X-ray, nuclear magnetic resonance Imaging (MRI) and computerized tomography (CT) were collected. Results-CT examination revealed 61 cases of patients with occult fractures and the accuracy rate was 80.26 %. MRI examination revealed 70 cases of patients with occult fractures and the accuracy rate of diagnosis was 92.11 %. There was no statistically significant difference between two methods in accuracy rates of fractures around the knee and recessive traumatic fracture (P > 0.05). For vertebral fractures and recessive bone fracture, the diagnosis rate of CT were 72.22 and 73.68 %, respectively the diagnosis rate of MRI were 91.67 and 94.74 %, respectively, there was statistically significant difference(P < 0.05). Conclusion-While both computerized tomography and MRI can easily detect the bone fractures that are not recognized from X-ray film and whose clinical signs and symptoms are not clear, MRI can easily detect the occult fractures that are not shown by x-ray film and computerized tomography imaging and it can clarify many types of injuries and thus has high value and clinical applications.
KeywordsNuclear magnetic resonance imaging Computerized tomography Occult fractures
- 1.Ahn JM, El-Khoury GY (2007) Occult fractures of extremities. Radiol Clin North Am 45(3):561–579, ixGoogle Scholar
- 11.Stevenson JD, Morley D, Srivastava S, et al (2012) Early CT for suspected occult scaphoid fractures. J Hand Surg Eur vol 37(5):447–451Google Scholar
- 12.Vellet AD, Marks PH, Fowler PJ et al (1991) Occult posttraumatic osteochondral lesions of the knee: prevalence, classification, and short-term sequelae evaluated with MR imaging. Radiology 178(1):271–276Google Scholar