Home Spinal Bone Bruise
Post
Cancel

Spinal Bone Bruise

Rationale and Objectives

The study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) before and after calcium subtraction in the diagnosis of spinal bone bruise.

Materials and Methods

Among the patients who visited our emergency department between January 2013 and July 2014 who underwent both spinal DECT and magnetic resonance imaging, 38 patients (men:women = 25:13; mean age: 55.6 years, range: 28–82) were included. The patients were divided into two groups, those with and without acute spinal compression fracture, based on magnetic resonance imaging findings. In the fracture group ( n = 22), the ratio of Hounsfield unit (HU) values was calculated between the fracture level and the next normal inferior vertebra in the DECT before and after calcium subtraction. In the non-fracture group ( n = 16), the ratios of HU values were calculated between two normal adjacent vertebrae. The mean HU ratios were compared between the two groups.

Results

The mean HU ratio was higher in the fracture group (calcium subtraction: before: 1.57 and 1.59; after: 1.74 and 1.76) than the non-fracture group (before: 1.07 and 1.08; after: 1.07 and 1.07) ( P < 0.001). The mean HU ratio between before and after calcium subtraction images was different only in the fracture group ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy (before: 0.846, 87.5%, 81.2%, 87.5%, 81.2%, 85%; after: 0.865, 91.7%, 81.2%, 88%, 86.7%, 87.5% in high energy) between the images before and after calcium subtraction.

Conclusion

The HU ratio between the fractured and next normal vertebra was diagnostic for spinal bone bruise on DECT images both before and after calcium subtraction.

Introduction

Vertebral compression fractures are very common and are associated with decreased quality of life and increased mortality. Patients with a diagnosed vertebral compression fracture have 15% higher mortality rates than those without . Thus, accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment are important for the improvement of mobility and function . However, the determination of a recent fracture is sometimes challenging, such as when the fractures are occult bone lesions (often referred to as bone bruises), which may not be revealed by conventional radiography, or when patients have multiple compression fractures of variable chronicity .

In acute vertebral compression fractures, such as those due to trauma, bone marrow lesions commonly present a “bone bruise” pattern, which is histologically heterogeneous in nature and associated with microtrabecular fractures of cancellous bone, hemorrhage, and swelling of the marrow with or without substantial disruption of the adjacent bone or overlying articular cartilage .

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Materials and Methods

Patients

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 1, Flowchart of the study population.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

CT Protocol

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

CT Image Reconstruction and Post-processing

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 2, The black areas in (a) indicate the subtracted bone (calcium) materials. These areas are obtained using the bone material axis (b) .

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

MR Imaging Protocol

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Image Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 3, (a) Sagittal T1 image shows low signal intensity at L1, suggesting an acute compression fracture. (b, c) On calcium subtraction images, the HU values of the regions of interest (ROIs) (the areas in red ) were obtained from low energy and high energy scans, respectively. (b) At L1 ( white asterisk ), the fractured vertebra, the HU values of the ROI are 136.7 and 113.0. (c) At L2 ( black asterisk ), the normal vertebra, those values are 75.4 and 54.3. Thus, the HU ratios are 1.8 and 2.1 for low energy and high energy, respectively. (Color version of figure is available online.)

Figure 4, (a) The sagittal T1 image shows no compression fracture. (b, c) On calcium subtraction images, the HU values of the regions of interest (ROIs) (the areas in red and green ) were obtained from low energy and high energy images, respectively. (b) At L3 ( white asterisk ), a non-fractured vertebra, the HU values of the ROI are 146.5 and 125.8. (c) At L4 ( black asterisk ), another non-fractured vertebra, those values are 146.0 and 125.3. Thus, the HU ratios are almost 1.0 and 1.0 at low energy and high energy, respectively. (Color version of figure is available online.)

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Statistical Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

TABLE 1

HU Ratios Between Two Groups on Before and After Calcium Subtraction Images

Before Subtraction After Subtraction Low Energy (100 kVp) High Energy (135 kVp) Low Energy (100 kVp) High Energy (135 kVp) Fracture group ( n = 24) 1.57 ± 0.60 \* 1.59 ± 0.60 ** 1.74 ± 0.70 \* 1.76 ± 0.81 ** Non-fractured group ( n = 16) 1.07 ± 0.22 1.08 ± 0.25 1.07 ± 0.31 1.07 ± 0.31P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

HU, Hounsfield unit.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 5, Receiver operating characteristic curves are calculated from HU ratios on images before (a, b) and after (c, d) calcium subtraction at low energy (100 kVp) and high energy (135 kVp): (a) before calcium subtraction (100 kVp); (b) before calcium subtraction (135 kVp); (c) after calcium subtraction (100 kVp); and (d) after calcium subtraction (135 kVp).

TABLE 2

Diagnostic Performances of HU Ratios From Before and After Calcium Subtraction Images in the Detection of Bone Marrow Contusion of Vertebral Compression Fractures

Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) PPV (%) NPV (%) Accuracy (%) Before 100 kVp 79.2 87.5 90.5 73.7 82.5 135 kVp 87.5 81.2 87.5 81.2 85.0 After 100 kVp 87.5 87.5 91.3 82.4 87.5 135 kVp 91.7 81.2 88 86.7 87.5

HU, Hounsfield unit; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

TABLE 3

Mean HU Values of Fractured and Non-fractured Vertebrae on Before and After Calcium Subtraction Images in the Fracture Group ( n = 24)

Before Subtraction After Subtraction Low Energy (100 kVp) High Energy (135 kVp) Low Energy (100 kVp) High Energy (135 kVp) Fractured vertebrae 179.72 ± 52.39 154.06 ± 43.49 129.49 ± 32.70 107.39 ± 27.16 Non-fractured vertebrae 124.87 ± 50.34 107.72 ± 42.81 83.55 ± 32.96 69.29 ± 26.08P value 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001

HU, Hounsfield unit.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Discussion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Conclusion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

  • 1. Agulnek A.N., O’Leary K.J., Edwards B.J.: Acute vertebral fracture. J Hosp Med 2009; 4: pp. E20-E24.

  • 2. Longo U.G., Loppini M., Denaro L., et. al.: Conservative management of patients with an osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94: pp. 152-157.

  • 3. Silverman S.L.: The clinical consequences of vertebral compression fracture. Bone 1992; 13: pp. S27-S31.

  • 4. Boks S.S., Vroegindeweij D., Koes B.W., et. al.: Follow-up of occult bone lesions detected at MR imaging: systematic review. Radiology 2006; 238: pp. 853-862.

  • 5. Wang C.K., Tsai J.M., Chuang M.T., et. al.: Bone marrow edema in vertebral compression fractures: detection with dual-energy CT. Radiology 2013; 269: pp. 525-533.

  • 6. Mandalia V., Henson J.H.: Traumatic bone bruising–a review article. Eur J Radiol 2008; 67: pp. 54-61.

  • 7. Thiryayi W.A., Thiryayi S.A., Freemont A.J.: Histopathological perspective on bone marrow oedema, reactive bone change and haemorrhage. Eur J Radiol 2008; 67: pp. 62-67.

  • 8. Kazawa N.: T2WI MRI and MRI-MDCT correlations of the osteoporotic vertebral compressive fractures. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: pp. 1630-1636.

  • 9. Han I.H., Chin D.K., Kuh S.U., et. al.: Magnetic resonance imaging findings of subsequent fractures after vertebroplasty. Neurosurgery 2009; 64: pp. 740-744. discussion 744–745

  • 10. Tanigawa N., Komemushi A., Kariya S., et. al.: Percutaneous vertebroplasty: relationship between vertebral body bone marrow edema pattern on MR images and initial clinical response. Radiology 2006; 239: pp. 195-200.

  • 11. Bierry G., Venkatasamy A., Kremer S., et. al.: Dual-energy CT in vertebral compression fractures: performance of visual and quantitative analysis for bone marrow edema demonstration with comparison to MRI. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43: pp. 485-492.

  • 12. Henes F.O., Groth M., Kramer H., et. al.: Detection of occult vertebral fractures by quantitative assessment of bone marrow attenuation values at MDCT. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83: pp. 167-172.

  • 13. Karaca L., Yuceler Z., Kantarci M., et. al.: The feasibility of dual-energy CT in differentiation of vertebral compression fractures. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20150300

  • 14. Lell M.M., Ruehm S.G., Kramer M., et. al.: Cranial computed tomography angiography with automated bone subtraction: a feasibility study. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: pp. 38-43.

  • 15. Johnson T.R., Krauss B., Sedlmair M., et. al.: Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: pp. 1510-1517.

  • 16. Yeh B.M., Shepherd J.A., Wang Z.J., et. al.: Dual-energy and low-kVp CT in the abdomen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: pp. 47-54.

  • 17. Guggenberger R., Gnannt R., Hodler J., et. al.: Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for the detection of traumatic bone marrow lesions in the ankle: comparison with MR imaging. Radiology 2012; 264: pp. 164-173.

  • 18. Pache G., Krauss B., Strohm P., et. al.: Dual-energy CT virtual noncalcium technique: detecting posttraumatic bone marrow lesions–feasibility study. Radiology 2010; 256: pp. 617-624.

  • 19. Kugel H., Jung C., Schulte O., et. al.: Age- and sex-specific differences in the 1H-spectrum of vertebral bone marrow. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13: pp. 263-268.

  • 20. Schellinger D., Lin C.S., Fertikh D., et. al.: Normal lumbar vertebrae: anatomic, age, and sex variance in subjects at proton MR spectroscopy–initial experience. Radiology 2000; 215: pp. 910-916.

  • 21. Schick F., Einsele H., Bongers H., et. al.: Leukemic red bone marrow changes assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and localized 1H spectroscopy. Ann Hematol 1993; 66: pp. 3-13.

  • 22. Schick F., Einsele H., Lutz O., et. al.: Lipid selective MR imaging and localized 1H spectroscopy of bone marrow during therapy of leukemia. Anticancer Res 1996; 16: pp. 1545-1551.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.