Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019;39(1):179-183.

Use of CT Vs. MRI for Diagnosis of Hip or Pelvic Fractures in Elderly Patients After Low Energy Trauma

Eileen Eggenberger  1 , Gregory Hildebrand  1   2 , Sandy Vang  1   2 , Amanda Ly  1   2 , Christina Ward  1   2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Use of CT Vs. MRI for Diagnosis of Hip or Pelvic Fractures in Elderly Patients After Low Energy Trauma

Eileen Eggenberger et al. Iowa Orthop J. 2019.

Abstract

Background: Elderly patients who fall account for more than two million emergency department visits each year. In 4-10 % of these patients, initial plain radiographs do not identify a hip or pelvis fracture later diagnosed with advanced imaging. No consensus exists about what type of imaging, CT or MRI, should be obtained in elderly patients with hip or pelvic pain after a low energy trauma. The purpose of this study was to determine whether CT or MRI is more likely to result in a definitive fracture diagnosis in elderly patients with hip or pelvic pain after low energy trauma.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who presented to the ED at a single level one trauma center over a 4.5 year period. Inclusion criteria were age greater than fifty years old, presentation with hip and/ or pelvis pain due to a low energy trauma, and radiographic imaging including both plain radiographs and at least one pelvis MRI or CT.

Results: Of the 218 patients who met inclusion criteria and had negative initial plain radiographs, CT or MRI later diagnosed a fracture in 69 patients (32%). Seventy eight patients underwent MRI (24 fractures, 32%), 132 underwent CT imaging (41 fractures, 31%), and eight had both CT and MRI (5 fractures, 63%). Patients who underwent CT spent less time in the ED on average (430 minutes) than those who underwent MRI, or MRI and CT (502 minutes and 620 minutes respectively). Patients who underwent CT were just as likely to be diagnosed with a fracture as those who underwent MRI (p= 0.002). We encountered no cases where CT imaging did not identify a fracture that was later identified on MRI. Fifty six patients (26%) had at least one contraindication to MRI.

Conclusions: Our study suggests CT may be adequate to rule out hip and pelvic fractures in this patient population. CT may be preferable to MRI based on decreased time spent in the ED and the large percentage of elderly patients with contraindications to MRI.Level of Evidence: III.

Keywords: computed tomography; diagnostic imaging; elderly fracture; hip fracture; mri.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures: The authors report no potential conflicts of interest related to this study.

References

    1. Dominguez S, Liu P, Roberts C, et al. Prevalence of traumatic hip and pelvic fractures in patients with suspected hip fracture and negative initial standard radiographs- a study of ED patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12:366–369. - PubMed
    1. Lubovsky O, Liebergall M, Mattan Y, et al. Early diagnosis of occult hip fractures MRI versus CT scan. Injury. 2005;36:788–792. - PubMed
    1. Cabarrus MC, Ambekar A, Lu Ye, et al. MRI and CT of insufficiency fractures of the pelvis and proximal femur. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:995–1001. - PubMed
    1. Haubro M, Stougaard C, Torfing T, Overgaard S. Sensitivity and specificity of CT- and MRI-scanning in evaluation of occult fracture of the proximal femur. Injury. 2015;26:1557–1561. - PubMed
    1. Verbeeten KM, Hermann KL, Hasselqvist M, et al. The advantages of MRI in the detection of occult hip fractures. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:165–9. - PubMed

Publication types