Compare the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and conventional radiography in diagnosis of distal radius injury before skeletal maturity

Objective: Physeal injuries in childhood may produce irreversible damage to the growing cells, resulting ingrowth disturbance. The aim of this study is compare conventional radiography and magnetic resonanceimaging (MRI) in the assessment of distal radius epiphyseal and physeal injury.Methods: 31 cases with distal radius trauma were examined with conventional radiography and MRI. Oneblinded experienced radiologists and one blinded experienced specialist in orthopedics separately evaluated theresults.Results: The main age of our patient was 11.74±2.98 years. The results of MRI showed 90.32% injury in allpatients whiles conventional radiography showed 64.51% injuries (P=0.014). In survey the physeal injury byconventional radiography we have 6 Salter–Harris II fractures. Meanwhile, the MRI showed 9 physeal injuriesthat included 6 Salter–Harris II fracture and 3 other fracture with physeal injury (all of them had distal radiusmicrofracture with mild physeal injury) (P> 0.05). In patients that conventional radiography showed they werenormally, MRI showed 4 Bone Bruising and 4 microfracture. The other results were similar. The sensitivity,specificity, Positive predictive value, negative predictive value and total accuracy of conventional radiographyin diagnosis of physeal injury were 66.6%, 100%, 100%, 88%, 90.32%.Conclusion: our study showed MRI and conventional radiography had almost similar power to diagnosisgrowth plate injuries in distal radius trauma. When we considering high cost of MRI, it’s seems thatconventional radiography was beneficial than MRI to use in distal radius injury.

Compare the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and conventional radiography in diagnosis of distal radius injury before skeletal maturity Keywords:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Physis , Radius Fractures , Radiography