| Title |
CT for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: Can CT findings accurately predict posterior ligament complex injury?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-018-5712-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bharti Khurana, Luciano M. Prevedello, Christopher M. Bono, Erwin Lin, Steven T. McCormack, Hamdi Jimale, Mitchel B. Harris, Aaron D. Sodickson |
| Abstract |
This study aims to determine whether secondary CT findings can predict posterior ligament complex (PLC) injury in patients with acute thoracic (T) or lumbar (L) spine fractures. This is a retrospective study of 105 patients with acute thoracic and lumbar spine fractures on CT, with MRI as the reference standard for PLC injury. Three readers graded CT for facet joint alignment (FJA), widening (FJW), pedicle or lamina fracture (PLF), spinous fracture (SPF), interspinous widening (ISW), vertebral translation (VBT), and posterior endplate fracture (PEF). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed separately for each reader to test for associations between CT and PLC injury, and diagnostic performance of CT was calculated. Fifty-three of 105 patients had PLC injury by MRI. Statistically significant predictors of PLC injury were VBT, PLF, ISW, and SPF. Using these four CT findings, odds of PLC injury ranged from 3.8 to 5.6 for one positive finding, but increased to 13.6-25.1 for two or more. At least one positive CT finding was found to yield average sensitivity of 82% and specificity 59%, while two or more yielded sensitivity 46% and specificity 88%. While no individual CT finding is sufficiently accurate to diagnose or exclude PLC injury, greater the number of positive CT findings (VBT, PLF, ISW, and SPF), the higher the odds of PLC injury. The presence of a single abnormal CT finding may warrant confirmatory MRI for PLC injury, while two or more CT findings may have adequate specificity to avoid need for MRI prior to surgical intervention. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 46% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,957,309
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#859
of 4,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,017
of 331,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#15
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,689 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.