Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2372041681
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ohashi, K.
Right arrow Articles by Berbaum, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ohashi, K.
Right arrow Articles by Berbaum, K. S.
(Radiology 2005;237:570-577.)
© RSNA, 2005

Musculoskeletal Imaging

Orthopedic Hardware Complications Diagnosed with Multi–Detector Row CT1

Kenjirou Ohashi, MD, Georges Y. El-Khoury, MD, D. Lee Bennett, MD, José M. Restrepo, MD and Kevin S. Berbaum, PhD

1 From the Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Dr, Iowa City, IA 52242. From the 2003 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received September 30, 2004; revision requested December 7; revision received January 20, 2005; accepted February 21. Address correspondence to K.O. (e-mail: kenjirou-ohashi{at}uiowa.edu).

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate multi–detector row computed tomography (CT) for the depiction of orthopedic hardware complications in the spine and appendicular skeleton.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval; patient informed consent was not required. Results of 114 multi–detector row CT studies performed because of possible hardware complications in 109 patients (57 men, 52 women; mean age, 44 years; age range, 12–82 years) were available for analysis. The CT studies were retrospectively reviewed and compared with clinical or surgical outcomes, which were used as the reference standard. In another experiment, detection of hardware complications on radiographs and multi–detector row CT images was compared between two readers for selected cases (18 positive and 26 negative) by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methods.

RESULTS: For 91 (80%) of 114 multi–detector row CT studies, the complication status could be determined on the basis of clinical or surgical outcomes. Twenty-three multi–detector row CT studies were confirmed to be positive (revealing 10 cases of nonunion, five cases of hardware malplacement, three cases of hardware loosening, three perihardware fractures, and two chronic infections), and 57 were confirmed to be negative. There were three false-positive and eight false-negative multi–detector row CT studies. With clinical or surgical outcomes as the reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of multi–detector row CT were 74% (23 of 31 studies), 95% (57 of 60 studies), 88% (23 of 26 studies), and 88% (57 of 65 studies), respectively. Results of ROC analysis indicated that detection of hardware complications was much lower with radiography than with multi–detector row CT (area under ROC curve, 0.84 vs 1.00; F = 4.69, df = 1, 43; P < .05).

CONCLUSION: Multi–detector row CT is an effective tool for depicting orthopedic hardware complications.

© RSNA, 2005




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. L. Dorsey, P. T. Liu, C. C. Roberts, and T. A. Kile
Correlation of Arthrodesis Stability with Degree of Joint Fusion on MDCT
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 496 - 499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]