Mustafa AVCI, Yavuz YILMAZ, Serkan YUKSEL, Ibrahim ETLİ, Nalan KOZACI

Comparison of radiography and computed tomography in emergency department evaluation of ankle trauma

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare computed tomography (CT) and radiography (XR) images of patients presented to theemergency department with ankle trauma and undergone CT imaging, and to describe the fractures for which XR is insufficient andthe characteristics of these fractures.Material and Methods: This retrospectively designed study included patients presented to the emergency department with ankletrauma between January 2016 and December 2017. Patients who had ankle trauma, who performed XR and CT imaging wereincluded in the study. The XR and CT images were reinterpreted by a radiologist.Results: Three hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled in the study. Of the patients, 137 (43.4%) had fracture on XR and 168(53.2%) had fracture on CT. The most common bone fractures were detected lateral malleolus and distal tibia fractures. Thesensitivity and specificity of XR in detecting fracture compared to CT were 75% and 93%, respectively. Sixty-three (20%) of thepatients had two simultaneous fractures. The sensitivity and specificity of XR in detecting two simultaneous fractures were 56%and 94%, respectively. Twelve (3.8%) of the patients had distal tibial, medial malleolus and lateral malleolus fractures (trimalleolarfracture). The sensitivity and specificity of XR in detecting trimalleolar fracture were 17% and 100%, respectively.Conclusion: XR has a low sensitivity in identifying ankle fractures. The sensitivity is much lower in cases of two simultaneousfractures and trimalleolar fractures. Therefore, CT imaging should be preferred in patients with complex ankle injuries.

PDF

___

1. Mehta SS, Rees K, Cutler L, et al. Understanding risks and complications in the management of ankle fractures. Indian J Orthop 2014;48:445-52.
2. Tartaglione JP, Rosenbaum AJ, Abousayed M, et al. Classifications in brief: lauge-hansen classification of ankle fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:3323-8.
3. Pinto A, Berritto D, Russo A, et al. Traumatic fractures in adults: missed diagnosis on plain radiographs in the emergency department. Acta Biomed 2018;89:111-23.
4. Caracchini G, Pietragalla M, De Renzis A, et al. Talar fractures: radiological and CT evaluation and classification systems. Acta Biomed 2018;89:151-65.
5. Chen Y, Zhang K, Qiang M, et al. Comparison of plain radiography and CT in postoperative evaluation of ankle fractures. Clin Radiol 2015;70:e74-82.
6. Gibson PD, Bercik MJ, Ippolito JA, et al. The role of computed tomography in surgical planning for trimalleolar fracture. a survey of ota members. J Orthop Trauma 2017;31:e116-e20.
7. Black EM, Antoci V, Lee JT, et al. Role of preoperative computed tomography scans in operative planning for malleolar ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int 2013;34:697-704.
8. Haapamaki VV, Kiuru MJ, Koskinen SK. Ankle and foot injuries: analysis of MDCT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:615-22.
9. Kozaci N, Ay MO, Avci M, et al. The comparison of point-ofcare ultrasonography and radiography in the diagnosis of tibia and fibula fractures. Injury 2017;48:1628-35.
10. Allen SD, Harvey CJ, O’Regan D. Interpretation of ankle and foot radiographs. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2006;67:8-11.
11. Caracchini G, Pietragalla M, De Renzis A, et al. Talar fractures: radiological and CT evaluation and classification systems. Acta Biomed 2018;89:151-65.
12. Meunier B, Joskin J, Gillet P, et al. Mécanisme et imageriedes fractures de la cheville. Rev Med Liège 2010;66:9:491-7.
13. Barile A, Bruno F, Arrigoni F, et al. Emergency and trauma of the ankle. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2017;21:282-9.
14. Mulligan ME. Ankle and foot trauma. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2000;4:241-53.
15. Sowman B, Radic R, Kuster M, et al. Distal tibio fibular radiological overlap: Does it always exist? Bone Joint Res 2012;1:20-4.
16. Lemburg SP, Lilienthal E, Heyer CM. Growth plate fractures of the distal tibia: is CT imaging necessary? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130:1411-7.
17. Hwang JS, Koury KL, Gorgy G, et al. Evaluation of intraarticular fracture extension after gunshot wounds to the lower extremity: plain radiographs versus computer tomography. J Orthop Trauma 2017;31:334-8.
18. Tornetta P, Gorup J. Axial computed tomography of pilon fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;273-6.
19. Yeung TW, Chan CY, Chan WC, et al. Canpre-operative axial CT imaging predict syndesmosis instability in patients sustaining ankle fractures? Seven years’ experience in a tertiary trauma center. Skeletal Radiol 2015;44:823-9.
20. Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Yang H, et al. Radiographic and CT evaluation of tibio fibular syndesmotic diastasis: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int 1997;18:693-8.
21. Dikos GD, Heisler J, Choplin RH, et al. Normal tibio fibular relationships at the syndesmosis on axial CT imaging. J Orthop Trauma 2012;26:433-8.
22. Linsenmaier U, Brunner U, Schöning A, et al. Classification of calcaneal fractures by spiral computed tomography: implications for surgical treatment. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2315- 22.
23. Badillo K, Pacheco JA, Padua SO, et al. Multidetector CT evaluation of calcaneal fractures. Radiographics 2011;31:81-92.
24. Angthong C, Atikomchaiwong A, Yoshimura I, et al. Does the addition of computed tomography to computed radiography provide more value to final outcomes and treatment decisions in displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures? J Med Assoc Thai 2014;97:S1-9.