Does multidetector computed tomography unravel the hidden domains of conventional radiography in calcaneal fractures?

Javaid Iqbal; Moonisah Rafiq; Abid Hussain

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20231180

Authors

Javaid Iqbal Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Moonisah Rafiq Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Abid Hussain Department of Orthopaedics, SKIMS Medical College Bemina, Srinagar, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20231180

Keywords:

Multidetector computed tomography, Volume rendering technique, Positive predictive value, Negative predictive value

Abstract

Background: The most often fractured bone among the tarsal bones is the calcaneum. The first assessment of the suspected calcaneum fracture is conventional radiography. The modern assessment of calcaneal fractures is mainly based on multidetector computed tomography, because of its three-dimensional nature and Volume rendering techniques. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of Multidetector CT with Conventional radiography in Calcaneal fractures taking operative data as reference standard.

Methods: The patients suspected for calcaneal fracture were subjected to conventional radiography and computed tomographic imaging and results were compared in terms of Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and Diagnostic accuracy, taking operative/MRI findings as reference standard.

Results: We included 68 cases in our study The Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were 92.6%, 33.33%, 82.3% and 98.3%, 71.4%, 95.5% for conventional radiography and MDCT respectively.

Conclusions: We settled that MDCT is far ahead of the conventional radiography in complete depiction, diagnosis, characterization and treatment formulation for calcaneal fractures.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Eiff MP, Hatch RL. Fracture management for primary care. 3rd ed. Philiadelphia; Elsevier Saunders: 2012.

Sanders RW, Clare MP. Cacaneous fractures. In: Rockwood and Green’s fractures in adults. Bucholz, RW, Heckman JD, Court Brown CM, Tornetta P, eds. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2010:2064.

Mitchell MJ, Mckinley JC, Robinson CM. The epidemiology of calcaneal fractures. Foot. 2009;19: 197.

Kenneth B, jose AP, Samuel OP, Angel AG, Edgar C, Jorge AV. Calcaneal fractures. Foot Ankle. 2010;21; 32.

Epstein N, Chandran S, Chou L. Current concepts review: intraarticular fractures of the calcaneus. Foot Ankle Int. 2012:33:79-86.

Sanders R, Fortin P, Dipasquale T. Operative treatment in 120 displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures. Results using a prognostic computed tomography scan classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;290:87-95.

Berberian W, Sood A, Karanfilian B. CT classification and results of operative treatment. Foot Ankle Clin. 2013;55:43-51.

Miller MD, Thompson SR. Miller’s review of orthopaedics. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2019.

Brunner A, Heeren N, Albrecht F, Hahn M, Ulmar B, Babst R. Effect of three dimensional tomography reconstructions on reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33 (9):33-727.

Zhang T, Chen W, Su Y, Wang H, Zhang H.Does axial view still play an important role in dealing calcaneal fractures?. BMC Surg. 2015;15 (1):19.

Vannier MW, Hildebolt Cf, Gilula LA, Pilgram TK, Mann F, Monsees BS, et al. Calcaneal and pelvic fractures; diagnostic evaluation three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Digit Imaging. 1991; 4(3):143-52.

Madadi F, Moghaddam AS. Diagnostic value of imaging modalities for suspected calcaneal fractures: A systemic review of literatures. Clin Res Foot Ankle. 2016;87(2):186.

Tanyu MO, Vinee P, Wimmer B. Value of 3D CT Imaging in fractures os Calcis. Comput Med Imaging. 1994;18(3):137-43.