open access
Comparison of conventional radiography and computed tomography in patients admitted to the emergency department with extremity trauma — a retrospective study
, 2, 3
Affiliations- Department of Emergency Medicine, Ardahan State Hospital, Turkiye
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Health Science University Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Turkiye
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Akdeniz University School of Medicine Antalya, Turkiye
open access
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to compare conventional radiography (X-ray) and computed tomography (CT) on diagnosis, operation plan, and hospitalization of patients with isolated extremity trauma admitted to the emergency department (ED).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed retrospectively. Patients with trauma involving extremities presenting to a tertiary ED between January 2019 and 2020 for twelve months who underwent both extremity CT and X-ray imaging were included in the study. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and Kappa coefficients were calculated on the CT reports.
RESULTS: A total of 1306 patients were included in the study. Extremity fractures were detected in 620 (47.6%) and 775 (59.3%) patients evaluated with X-ray, and CT scans respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the X-ray of all extremity fractures by anatomical region was evaluated. For the shoulder region compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 98%, PPV 98%, and NPV 96% [AUC: 0.969, 95% CI 0.935 to 1.000) in diagnosing proximal humeral fractures. For the elbow joint region compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 98%, PPV 88%, and NPV 99% in diagnosing supracondylar fracture (AUC: 0.973, 95% CI 0.924–1.000). X-ray had a sensitivity of 94%, and specificity of 100%, compared with CT at the wrist region, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 98% in diagnosing distal ulnar fractures (AUC: 0.974, 95% CI 0.941 to 1.000). The most common knee fracture was a proximal tibia fracture on X-ray. Compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity for the diagnosis of proximal fibular fractures with 85% sensitivity, 100% specificity, PPV 100%, and NPV 98% (AUC: 0.925, 95% CI 0.832 to 1.000). At the ankle region, distal tibia fracture was the most common fracture on X-ray. Compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 98%, PPV 96%, and NPV 94% (AUC: 0.922, 95% CI 0.879 to 0.966) in the diagnosis of distal fibular fractures. The sensitivity of the X-ray was very low compared to CT in the talus, calcaneus, navicular, and cuneiform bones.
CONCLUSIONS: For upper extremities, X-ray can be useful to determine diagnosing proximal humerus, supracondylar, distal radius, and ulna fracture. Additionally for lower extremities, it can be used in the diagnosis of proximal fibular fractures and distal tibia-fibular fractures. X-ray is beneficial for long bones and CT for carpal and tarsal bones.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to compare conventional radiography (X-ray) and computed tomography (CT) on diagnosis, operation plan, and hospitalization of patients with isolated extremity trauma admitted to the emergency department (ED).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed retrospectively. Patients with trauma involving extremities presenting to a tertiary ED between January 2019 and 2020 for twelve months who underwent both extremity CT and X-ray imaging were included in the study. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and Kappa coefficients were calculated on the CT reports.
RESULTS: A total of 1306 patients were included in the study. Extremity fractures were detected in 620 (47.6%) and 775 (59.3%) patients evaluated with X-ray, and CT scans respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the X-ray of all extremity fractures by anatomical region was evaluated. For the shoulder region compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 98%, PPV 98%, and NPV 96% [AUC: 0.969, 95% CI 0.935 to 1.000) in diagnosing proximal humeral fractures. For the elbow joint region compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 98%, PPV 88%, and NPV 99% in diagnosing supracondylar fracture (AUC: 0.973, 95% CI 0.924–1.000). X-ray had a sensitivity of 94%, and specificity of 100%, compared with CT at the wrist region, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 98% in diagnosing distal ulnar fractures (AUC: 0.974, 95% CI 0.941 to 1.000). The most common knee fracture was a proximal tibia fracture on X-ray. Compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity for the diagnosis of proximal fibular fractures with 85% sensitivity, 100% specificity, PPV 100%, and NPV 98% (AUC: 0.925, 95% CI 0.832 to 1.000). At the ankle region, distal tibia fracture was the most common fracture on X-ray. Compared with CT, X-ray had a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 98%, PPV 96%, and NPV 94% (AUC: 0.922, 95% CI 0.879 to 0.966) in the diagnosis of distal fibular fractures. The sensitivity of the X-ray was very low compared to CT in the talus, calcaneus, navicular, and cuneiform bones.
CONCLUSIONS: For upper extremities, X-ray can be useful to determine diagnosing proximal humerus, supracondylar, distal radius, and ulna fracture. Additionally for lower extremities, it can be used in the diagnosis of proximal fibular fractures and distal tibia-fibular fractures. X-ray is beneficial for long bones and CT for carpal and tarsal bones.
Keywords
extremity trauma; fracture; computed tomography; x-ray; emergency department
About this articleTitle
Comparison of conventional radiography and computed tomography in patients admitted to the emergency department with extremity trauma — a retrospective study
Journal
Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal
Issue
Article type
Research paper
Pages
141-150
Published online
2023-04-21
Page views
546
Article views/downloads
557
DOI
Bibliographic record
Disaster Emerg Med J 2023;8(3):141-150.
Keywords
extremity trauma
fracture
computed tomography
x-ray
emergency department
Authors
Burak Üstün
Mustafa Korkut
Seçgin Söyüncü
References (26)- Beerekamp MSH, de Muinck Keizer RJO, Schep NWL, et al. Epidemiology of extremity fractures in the Netherlands. Injury. 2017; 48(7): 1355–1362.
- Er E, Kara PH, Oyar O, et al. Overlooked extremity fractures in the emergency department. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2013; 19(1): 25–28.
- Hallas P, Ellingsen T. Errors in fracture diagnoses in the emergency department--characteristics of patients and diurnal variation. BMC Emerg Med. 2006; 6: 4.
- Guly HR. Diagnostic errors in an accident and emergency department. EMJ. 2001; 18(4): 263–269.
- Pinto A, Berritto D, Russo A, et al. Traumatic fractures in adults: missed diagnosis on plain radiographs in the Emergency Department. Acta Biomed. 2018; 89(1-S): 111–123.
- Miele V, Galluzzo M, Trinci M. Missed fractures in the emergency deartment. Errors in radiology. Springer 2012: 39–50.
- Barile A, Bruno F, Arrigoni F, et al. Emergency and Trauma of the Ankle. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2017; 21(3): 282–289.
- Reginelli A, Zappia M, Barile A, et al. Strategies of imaging after orthopedic surgery. Musculoskelet Surg. 2017; 101(Suppl 1): 1.
- Falkowski AL, Kovacs BK, Benz RM, et al. Comparison of 3D X-ray tomography with computed tomography in patients with distal extremity fractures. Skeletal Radiol. 2020; 49(12): 1965–1975.
- Caracchini G, Pietragalla M, De Renzis A, et al. Talar fractures: radiological and CT evaluation and classification systems. Acta Biomed. 2018; 89(1-S): 151–165.
- Chen Y, Zhang K, Qiang M, et al. Comparison of plain radiography and CT in postoperative evaluation of ankle fractures. Clin Radiol. 2015; 70(8): e74–e82.
- Avci M, Kozaci N, Yuksel S, et al. Comparison of radiography and computed tomography in emergency department evaluation of ankle trauma. 2019.
- Etli I, Kozaci N, Avci M, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of X-ray and computed tomography in patients with wrist injury. Injury. 2020; 51(3): 651–655.
- Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. Wiley, New York 1981.
- Mustonen AOT, Koskinen SK, Kiuru MJ. Acute knee trauma: analysis of multidetector computed tomography findings and comparison with conventional radiography. Acta Radiol. 2005; 46(8): 866–874.
- Wicky S, Blaser PF, Blanc CH, et al. Comparison between standard radiography and spiral CT with 3D reconstruction in the evaluation, classification and management of tibial plateau fractures. Eur Radiol. 2000; 10(8): 1227–1232.
- Hwang JS, Koury KL, Gorgy G, et al. Evaluation of Intra-articular Fracture Extension After Gunshot Wounds to the Lower Extremity: Plain Radiographs Versus Computer Tomography. Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 2017; 31(6): 334–338.
- Lemburg SP, Lilienthal E, Heyer CM. Growth plate fractures of the distal tibia: is CT imaging necessary? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010; 130(11): 1411–1417.
- Bahrs C, Rolauffs B, Südkamp NP, et al. Indications for computed tomography (CT-) diagnostics in proximal humeral fractures: a comparative study of plain radiography and computed tomography. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009; 10: 33.
- Catapano M, Albano D, Pozzi G, et al. Differences between orthopaedic evaluation and radiological reports of conventional radiographs in patients with minor trauma admitted to the emergency department. Injury. 2017; 48(11): 2451–2456.
- Padegimas EM, Ilyas AM. Distal radius fractures: emergency department evaluation and management. Orthop Clin North Am. 2015; 46(2): 259–270.
- Oguz AB, Polat O, Eneyli MG, et al. The efficiency of bedside ultrasonography in patients with wrist injury and comparison with other radiological imaging methods: A prospective study. Am J Emerg Med. 2017; 35(6): 855–859.
- Welling RD, Jacobson JA, Jamadar DA, et al. MDCT and radiography of wrist fractures: radiographic sensitivity and fracture patterns. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(1): 10–16.
- Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Ginai AZ, et al. Acute knee trauma: value of a short dedicated extremity MR imaging examination for prediction of subsequent treatment. Radiology. 2005; 234(1): 125–133.
- Teh J, Kambouroglou G, Newton J. Investigation of acute knee injury. BMJ. 2012; 344: e3167.
- Avci M, Kozaci N. Comparison of X-Ray Imaging and Computed Tomography Scan in the Evaluation of Knee Trauma. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019; 55(10).