Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Value of CT to detect radiographically occult injuries of the proximal femur in elderly patients after low-energy trauma: determination of non-inferiority margins of CT in comparison with MRI

  • Emergency Radiology
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the margins of non-inferiority of the sensitivity of CT and the sample size needed to test the non-inferiority of CT in comparison with MRI.

Materials and methods

During a 2-year period, elderly patients with suspected radiographically occult post-traumatic bone injuries were investigated by CT and MRI in two institutions. Four radiologists analyzed separately the CT and MRI examinations to detect post-traumatic femoral injuries. Their sensitivities at CT (SeCT) and MRI (SeMRI) were calculated with the reference being a best valuable comparator (consensus reading of the MRI and clinical follow-up). ROC analysis followed by an exact test (Newcombe’s approach) was performed to assess the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference SeCT–SeMRI for each reader. A sample size calculation was performed based on our observed results by using a one-sided McNemar’s test.

Results

Twenty-nine out of 102 study participants had a post-traumatic femoral injury. SeCT ranged between 83 and 93% and SeMRI ranged between 97 and 100%. The 95% CIs for (SeCT–SeMRI) were [− 5.3%, + 0.8%], (pR1 = 0.1250), [− 4.5%; + 1.2%] (pR2 = 0.2188), [− 3.4%; + 1.1%] (pR3 = 0.2500) to [− 3.8%; + 1.6%] (pR4 = 0.3750) according to readers, with a lowest limit for 95% CIs superior to a non-inferiority margin of (− 6%) for all readers. A population of 440 patients should be analyzed to test the non-inferiority of CT in comparison with MRI.

Conclusion

CT and MRI are sensitive for the detection of radiographically occult femoral fractures in elderly patients after low-energy trauma. The choice between both these modalities is a compromise between the most available and the most sensitive technique.

Key Points

• The sensitivity of four separate readers to detect radiographically occult post-traumatic femoral injuries in elderly patients after low-energy trauma ranged between 83 and 93% at CT and between 97 and 100% at MRI according to a best valuable comparator including MRI and clinical follow-up.

• CT is a valuable alternative method to MRI for the detection of post-traumatic femoral injuries in elderlies after low-energy trauma if a 6% loss in sensitivity can be accepted in comparison with MRI.

• The choice between CT and MRI is a compromise between the most available and the most sensitive technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AUC:

Area under the curve

CI:

Confidence interval

CT:

Computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PACS:

Picture archiving and communication systems

PPV:

Positive predictive value

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

SD:

Standard deviation

Se:

Sensitivity

SE:

Spin echo

Sp:

Specificity

STIR:

Short tau inversion recovery

References

  1. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7:407–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ensrud KE (2013) Epidemiology of fracture risk with advancing age. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 68:1236–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ 3rd (1992) Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int 2:285–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zuckerman JD, Skovron ML, Koval KJ, Aharonoff G, Frankel VH (1995) Postoperative complications and mortality associated with operative delay in older patients who have a fracture of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1551–1556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ward RJ, Weissman BN, Kransdorf MJ et al (2014) ACR appropriateness criteria acute hip pain-suspected fracture. J Am Coll Radiol 11:114–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Parker MJ (1992) Missed hip fractures. Arch Emerg Med 9:23–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan SK, Kalra S, Khanna A, Thiruvengada MM, Parker MJ (2009) Timing of surgery for hip fractures: a systematic review of 52 published studies involving 291,413 patients. Injury 40:692–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Deutsch AL, Mink JH, Waxman AD (1989) Occult fractures of the proximal femur: MR imaging. Radiology 170:113–116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rizzo PF, Gould ES, Lyden JP, Asnis SE (1993) Diagnosis of occult fractures about the hip. Magnetic resonance imaging compared with bone-scanning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:395–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bogost GA, Lizerbram EK, Crues JV 3rd (1995) MR imaging in evaluation of suspected hip fracture: frequency of unsuspected bone and soft-tissue injury. Radiology 197:263–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lubovsky O, Liebergall M, Mattan Y, Weil Y, Mosheiff R (2005) Early diagnosis of occult hip fractures MRI versus CT scan. Injury 36:788–792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dominguez S, Liu P, Roberts C, Mandell M, Richman PB (2005) Prevalence of traumatic hip and pelvic fractures in patients with suspected hip fracture and negative initial standard radiographs--a study of emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med 12:366–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cabarrus MC, Ambekar A, Lu Y, Link TM (2008) MRI and CT of insufficiency fractures of the pelvis and the proximal femur. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:995–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hakkarinen DK, Banh KV, Hendey GW (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging identifies occult hip fractures missed by 64-slice computed tomography. J Emerg Med 43:303–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jordan R, Dickenson E, Westacott D, Baraza N, Srinivasan K (2013) A vast increase in the use of CT scans for investigating occult hip fractures. Eur J Radiol 82:e356–e359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heikal S, Riou P, Jones L (2014) The use of computed tomography in identifying radiologically occult hip fractures in the elderly. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 96:234–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Haubro M, Stougaard C, Torfing T, Overgaard S (2015) Sensitivity and specificity of CT- and MRI-scanning in evaluation of occult fracture of the proximal femur. Injury 46:1557–1561

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rehman H, Clement RG, Perks F, White TO (2016) Imaging of occult hip fractures: CT or MRI? Injury 47:1297–1301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sadozai Z, Davies R, Warner J (2016) The sensitivity of ct scans in diagnosing occult femoral neck fractures. Injury 47:2769–2771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thomas RW, Williams HL, Carpenter EC, Lyons K (2016) The validity of investigating occult hip fractures using multidetector CT. Br J Radiol 89:20150250

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Dunker D, Collin D, Göthlin JH, Geijer M (2012) High clinical utility of computed tomography compared to radiography in elderly patients with occult hip fracture after low-energy trauma. Emerg Radiol 19:135–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK) (2011) The management of hip fracture in adults. NICEClinical Guidelines, No. 124

  23. Collin D, Geijer M, Göthlin JH (2016) Computed tomography compared to magnetic resonance imaging in occult or suspect hip fractures. A retrospective study in 44 patients. Eur Radiol 26:3932–3938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kellock TT, Nicolaou S, Kim SSY et al (2017) Detection of bone marrow edema in nondisplaced hip fractures: utility of a virtual noncalcium dual-energy CT application. Radiology 284:922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Buderer NM (1996) Statistical methodology: I. incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity. Acad Emerg Med 3:895–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Newcombe RG (1998) Improved confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions based on paired data. Stat Med 17:2635–2650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Alam A, Willett K, Ostlere S (2005) The MRI diagnosis and management of incomplete intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1253–1255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chana R, Noorani A, Ashwood N, Chatterji U, Healy J, Baird P (2006) The role of MRI in the diagnosis of proximal femoral fractures in the elderly. Injury 37:185–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Frihagen F, Nordsletten L, Tariq R, Madsen JE (2005) MRI diagnosis of occult hip fractures. Acta Orthop 76:524–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pejic A, Hansson S, Rogmark C (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging for verifying hip fracture diagnosis why, when and how? Injury 48:687–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ahn S, Park SH, Lee KH (2013) How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 267:328–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haramati N, Staron RB, Barax C, Feldman F (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging of occult fractures of the proximal femur. Skeletal Radiol 23:19–22

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Oka M, Monu JU (2004) Prevalence and patterns of occult hip fractures and mimics revealed by MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:283–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pandey R, McNally E, Ali A, Bulstrode C (1998) The role of MRI in the diagnosis of occult hip fractures. Injury 29:61–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Quinn SF, McCarthy JL (1993) Prospective evaluation of patients with suspected hip fracture and indeterminate radiographs: use of T1-weighted MR images. Radiology 187:469–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kirby MW, Spritzer C (2010) Radiographic detection of hip and pelvic fractures in the emergency department. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1054–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Geijer M, Dunker D, Collin D, Göthlin JH (2012) Bone bruise, lipohemarthrosis, and joint effusion in CT of non-displaced hip fracture. Acta Radiol 53:197–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Reddy T, McLaughlin PD, Mallinson PI et al (2015) Detection of occult, undisplaced hip fractures with a dual-energy CT algorithm targeted to detection of bone marrow edema. Emerg Radiol 22:25–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pathria MN, Chung CB, Resnick DL (2016) Acute and stress-related injuries of bone and cartilage: pertinent anatomy, basic biomechanics, and imaging perspective. Radiology 280:21–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chang EY, Bae WC, Shao H et al (2015) Ultrashort echo time magnetization transfer (UTE-MT) imaging of cortical bone. NMR Biomed 28:873–880

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jerban S, Ma Y, Nazaran A et al (2018) Detecting stress injury (fatigue fracture) in fibular cortical bone using quantitative ultrashort echo time-magnetization transfer (UTE-MT): an ex vivo study. NMR Biomed 31:e3994

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Collin D, Dunker D, Göthlin JH, Geijer M (2011) Observer variation for radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging of occult hip fractures. Acta Radiol 52:871–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Karch A, Koch A, Zapf A, Zerr I, Karch A (2016) Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard. J Clin Epidemiol 78:73–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Institut de Recherche expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    Solenne J. Lanotte, Nicolas Michoux, Charbel Mourad, Jacques Malghem & Bruno C. Vande Berg

  2. Department of Radiology, Faculté de Médecine de Montpellier/Nîmes, Hôpital Lapeyronie, 34000, Montpellier, France

    Ahmed Larbi, Marie-Pierre Baron, Aymeric Hamard & Catherine Cyteval

Authors
  1. Solenne J. Lanotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed Larbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas Michoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marie-Pierre Baron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aymeric Hamard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Charbel Mourad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jacques Malghem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Catherine Cyteval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bruno C. Vande Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno C. Vande Berg.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is B. Vande Berg.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (N Michoux) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the two participating institutions.

Methodology

• Prospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Multicenter study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lanotte, S.J., Larbi, A., Michoux, N. et al. Value of CT to detect radiographically occult injuries of the proximal femur in elderly patients after low-energy trauma: determination of non-inferiority margins of CT in comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 30, 1113–1126 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06387-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06387-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation