Comparison of different radiography systems in an experimental study for detection of forearm fractures and evaluation of the Müller-AO and Frykman classification for distal radius fractures

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 681-690

  Metz, Stephan ^a   Kuhn, Volker ^b,c   Kettler, Mark ^d   Hudelmaier, Martin ^b,e   Bonel, Harald M ^b,f   Waldt, Simone ^a   Hollweck, Regina ^g   Renger, Bernhard ^a   Rummeny, Ernst J ^a   Link, Thomas M ^a,h  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^d LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e PARACELSUS MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^g TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Distal radius fracture; Flat panel detector; ROC analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CADAVER; CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DISEASE SEVERITY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FLAT PANEL DETECTOR SYSTEM; FOREARM FRACTURE; FRYKMAN CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULLER AO CLASSIFICATION; PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIUS FRACTURE; ROC CURVE; SCREEN FILM RADIOGRAPHY; STORAGE PHOSPHOR RADIOGRAPHY; ULNA FRACTURE;

EID: 33747075169     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000233326.94998.b0     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Siewerdsen JH, Antonuk LE, El-Mohri Y, et al. Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology. Med Phys. 1998;25:614-628.
2. Granfors PR. Performances characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray imaging detector. Proc SPIE. 1999;3659:480-490.
3. Spahn M, Strotzer M, Volk M, et al. Digital radiography with a large-area, amorphous-silicon, flat-panel x-ray detector system. Invest Radiol. 2000;35:260-266.
4. Floyd CE Jr, Warp RJ, Dobbins JT 3rd, et al. Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography. Radiology. 2001;218:683-688.
5. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, Volk M, et al. Clinical application of a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction in skeletal radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:23-27.
6. Volk M, Strotzer M, Holzknecht N, et al. Digital radiography of the skeleton using a large-area detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for dose reduction in comparison with screen-film radiography. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:615-621.
7. Hamers S, Freyschmidt J, Neitzel U. Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:1753-1759.
8. Okamura T, Tanaka S, Koyama K, et al. Clinical evaluation of digital radiography based on a large-area cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector compared with screen-film radiography for skeletal system and abdomen. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1741-1747.
9. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, Spahn M, et al. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus screen-film radiography: effect of dose reduction on the detectability of cortical bone defects and fractures. Invest Radiol. 1998;33:33-38.
10. Ludwig K, Link TM, Fiebich M, et al. Selenium-based digital radiography in the detection of bone lesions: preliminary experience with experimentally created defects. Radiology. 2000;216:220-224.
11. Ludwig K, Lenzen H, Kamm KF, et al. Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography. Radiology. 2002;222:453-459.
12. Peer S, Neitzel U, Giacomuzzi SM, et al. Direct digital radiography versus storage phosphor radiography in the detection of wrist fractures. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:258-262.
13. Ludwig K, Schulke C, Diederich S, et al. Detection of subtle undisplaced rib fractures in a porcine model: radiation dose requirement - digital flat-panel versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems. Radiology. 2003;227:163-168.
14. Ludwig K, Henschel A, Bernhardt TM, et al. Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1316-1323.
15. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, et al. Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phosphor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details. Radiology. 2004;231:506-514.
16. Goldfarb CA, Yin Y, Gilula LA, et al. Wrist fractures: what the clinician wants to know. Radiology. 2001;219:11-28.
17. Illarramendi A, Gonzalez Della Valle A, Segal E, et al. Evaluation of simplified Frykman and AO classifications of fractures of the distal radius. Assessment of interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Int Orthop. 1998;22:111-115.
18. Dahlen HC, Franck WM, Sabauri G, et al. Incorrect classification of extra-articular distal radius fractures by conventional x-rays. Comparison between biplanar radiologic diagnostics and CT assessment of fracture morphology. Unfallchirurg. 2004;107:491-498.
19. Lill CA, Goldhahn J, Albrecht A, et al. Impact of bone density on distal radius fracture patterns and comparison between five different fracture classifications. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17:271-278.
20. Hudelmaier M, Kuhn V, Lochmüller EM, et al. Can geometry-based parameters from pQCT and material parameters from quantitative ultrasound (QUS) improve the prediction of radial bone strength over that by bone mass (DXA)? Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:375-381.
21. Lochmüller EM, Lill CA, Kuhn V, et al. Radius bone strength in bending, compression, and falling and its correlation with clinical densitometry at multiple sites. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:1629-1638.
22. Pechlaner S. Handchirurgie. Reinbek, Germany: Einhorn-Presse Verlag; 1999.
23. Rüedi TP, Murphy WM, et al. AO Principles of Fracture Management. Davos: AO Publishing & Stuttgart New York: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2000.
24. Frykman G. Fracture of the distal radius including sequelae: shoulder-hand-finger syndrome, disturbance in the distal radio-ulnar joint and impairment of nerve function. A clinical and experimental study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1967;108(Suppl):1-153.
25. Greenspan A. Orthopedic Imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:172.
26. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 1978;8:283-298.
27. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39:561-577.
28. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148:839-843.
29. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37-46.
30. Cicchetti DV, Allison T. A new procedure for assessing reliability of scoring EEG sleep recordings. Am J EEG Technol. 1971;11:101-109.
31. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
32. O'Brien RG, Muller KE. Unified power analysis for t-tests through multivariate hypotheses. In: Edwards LK, ed. Applied Analysis of Variance in Behavioral Science. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1993:297-344.
33. Rapp-Bernhardt U, Roehl FW, Esseling R, et al. Portable flat-panel detector for low-dose imaging in a pediatric intensive care unit: comparison with an asymmetric film-screen system. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:736-741.
34. Uffmann M, Prokop M, Eisenhuber E, et al. Computed radiography and direct radiography: influence of acquisition dose on the detection of simulated lung lesions. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:249-256.
35. Murphey MD, Quale JL, Martin NL, et al. Computed radiography in musculoskeletal imaging: state of the art. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:19-27.