4.2 Article

Carpal pseudoerosions: a plain X-ray interpretation pitfall

期刊

SKELETAL RADIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 10, 页码 1377-1385

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00256-014-1907-5

关键词

Erosion; Pseudoerosion; Wrist; Rheumatoid arthritis; Radiography; Tomosynthesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To examine in detail images of pseudoerosion of the wrist and hand on plain radiographs. The study was conducted with 28 cadaver wrists. During a single imaging session three techniques-plain radiography, tomosynthesis, and computed tomography-were used to visualize the wrist and hand specimens. For each technique, 20 radio-ulno-carpo-metacarpal sites known to present bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis were analyzed by two radiologists using a standard system to score the cortical bone: normal, pseudoerosion, true erosion, or other pathology. Cohen's concordance analysis was performed to determine inter-observer and intra-observer (for the senior radiologist) agreement by site and by technique. Serial sections of two cadaver specimens were examined to determine the anatomical correlation of the pseudoerosions. On the plain radiographs, the radiologists scored many images as pseudoerosion (7.3 %), particularly in the distal ulnar portion of the capitate, the distal radial portion of the hamate, the proximal ulnar portion of the base of the third metacarpal, the proximal radial portion of the base of the fourth metacarpal, the distal ulnar portion of the hamate, and the proximal portion of the base of the fifth metacarpal. The computed tomography scan revealed that none of these doubtful images corresponded to true erosions. The anatomical correlation study showed that these images could probably be attributed to ligament insertions, thinner lamina, and enhanced cortical bone transparency. Knowledge of the anatomical carpal localizations where pseudoerosions commonly occur is a necessary prerequisite for analysis of plain radiographs performed to diagnose or monitor rheumatoid arthritis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据