Abstract
Conventional radiography is the first step in the radiological work-up of fragility fractures of the pelvis. Three views are obtained: the a.-p. pelvic overview, the pelvic inlet and pelvic outlet views. Fractures of the anterior pelvic ring are recognized easily. The inner curve of the innominate bone and the anterior cortex of the sacral ala are best evaluated on the pelvic inlet view. Shape and symmetry of the sacrum, neuroforamina and sacroiliac joints, and cranial displacements are best assessed on the pelvic outlet view. However, plain radiographs are insensitive for the detection of fractures in the posterior pelvic ring. Multidetector computed tomography is considered as imaging modality of choice, if involvement of the posterior pelvic ring is suspected or confirmed. Multiplanar reconstructions are nowadays available. Coronal reconstructions allow best assessment of the cranio-caudal extent of sacral ala and innominate bone fractures. Horizontal components and displacement of sacral fractures are best appreciated on sagittal reconstructions. Modern scanners with appropriate software tools deliver 3D displays that simulate conventional radiographs in the standard projections. 3D reconstructions provide a complete overview of the fractured pelvic ring, allowing the observer an outside view of the whole pelvis from every perspective. The main disadvantage of conventional CT techniques is their inability to detect microfractures of cancellous bone. Magnetic resonance imaging is a highly sensitive imaging tool in detecting and characterizing occult traumatic osseous lesions. MRI is recommended when detection of an additional fracture in the posterior pelvic ring has an implication on the choice of the therapeutic procedure. Bone scintigraphy with technetium Tc99m medronate methylene diphosphonate (Tc-99m-labeled MDP) is a very sensitive method for the detection of sacral insufficiency fractures. The most important drawback is its low specificity as e.g. the inability to reliably differentiate between a fracture and a metastasis. In the era of multidetector CT scanners, 3D displays can be generated that very much resemble the pelvic a.p., inlet and outlet views. When a CT scan is quickly available and of optimal quality, conventional radiographs become dispensable. Conventional radiography still plays an important role in the assessment of reduction quality and fracture healing.
References
Böhme J, Höch A, Josten C. Osteoporotische Frakturen des Beckens. Chirurg. 2012;83:875–81.
O’Connor TJ, Cole PA. Pelvic insufficiency fractures. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2014;5:178–90.
Arduini M, Saturnino L, Piperno A, Lundusi R, Tarantino U. Fragility fractures of the pelvis: treatment and preliminary results. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27(Suppl 1):S61–7.
Rommens PM, Ossendorf C, Pairon P, Dietz S-O, Wagner D, Hofmann A. Clinical pathways for fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: personal experience and review of the literature. J Orthop Sci. 2015;20:1–11.
Wagner D, Ossendorf C, Gruszka D, Hofmann A, Rommens PM. Fragility fractures of the sacrum: how to identify and when to treat surgically? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;41:349–62.
Rommens PM, Hofmann A. Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury. 2013;44:1733–44.
Lyders EM, Whitlow CT, Baker MD, Morris PP. Imaging and treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures. Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:201–10.
Gotis-Graham I, Mc Guigan L, Diamond T, et al. Sacral insufficiency fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:882–6.
Hall FM, Goldberg LP, Kasdon EJ, Glick H. Post-traumatic osteolysis of the pubic bone simulating a malignant lesion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:121–6.
Peh WC, Khong PL, Yin Y. Imaging of pelvic insufficiency fractures. Radiographics. 1996;16:335–48.
Cabarrus MC, Ambekar A, Lu Y, Link TM. MRI and CT of insufficiency fractures of the pelvis and the proximal femur. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:995–1001.
De Smet AA, Neff JR. Pubic and sacral insufficiency fractures: clinical course and radiologic findings. Am J Roentgenol. 1985;145:601–6.
Scheyerer MJ, Osterhoff G, Wehrle S, Wanner GA, Simmen H-P, Werner CML. Detection of posterior pelvic injuries in fractures of the pubic rami. Injury. 2012;32:1326–9.
Henes FO, Nüchtern JV, Groth M, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomography in the detection of pelvic fractures. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:2237–342.
Soles GLS, Ferguson TA. Fragility fractures of the pelvis. Curr Rev Musculoskeletal Med. 2012;5:222–8.
Linstrom NJ, Heiserman JE, Kortman KE, et al. Anatomical and biomechanical analyses of the unique and consistent locations of sacral insufficiency fractures. Spine. 2009;34:309–15.
Stäbler A, Steiner W, Kohz P, Bartl R, Berger H, Reiser M. Time-dependent changes of insufficiency fractures of the sacrum: intraosseous vacuum phenomenon as an early sign. Eur Radiol. 1996;6:655–7.
Sutter R, Dietrich T. Reduktion von Metallartefakten in der muskuloskelettalen Bildgebung. Radup2date. 2016;16:125–44.
Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TRC. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1424–9.
Henes FO, Goth M, Bley TA, et al. Quantitative assessment of bone marrow attenuation values at MDCT: an objective tool for the detection of bone bruise related to occult sacral insufficiency fractures. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2229–36.
Pache G, Krauss B, Strohm P, et al. Dual-energy CT virtual non-calcium technique: detecting posttraumatic bone marrow lesions—feasibility study. Radiology. 2010;256:617–24.
Guggenberger R, Gnannt R, Hodler J, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for the detection of traumatic bone marrow lesions in the ankle: comparison with MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;264:164–73.
Wang C-K, Tsai J-M, Chuang M-T, Wang M-T, Hiang K-Y, Lin R-M. Bone marrow edema in vertebral compression fractures: detection with dual-energy CT. Radiology. 2013;269:525–33.
Scheyerer MJ, Hüllner M, Pietsch C, Werner CML, Veit-Heibach P. Evaluation of pelvic ring injuries using SPECT/CT. Skelet Radiol. 2015;44:217–22.
Tins BJ, Garton M, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Tyrrell PNM, Lalam R, Singh J. Stress fracture of the pelvis and lower limbs including atypical femoral fractures—a review. Insights Imaging. 2015;6:97–110.
Staatz G, Adam G, Kilbinger M, Günther R. Osteoporotische Stressfrakturen des Os sacrum: MR-tomographische Befunde. Fortschr Roentgenstr. 1997;166:307–11.
Ries T. Detection of osteoporotic sacral fractures with radionuclides. Radiology. 1983;146:783–5.
Fujii M, Abe K, Hahyashi K, et al. Honda signs and variants in patients suspected of having a sacral insufficiency fracture. Clin Nucl Med. 2005;30:165–9.
Kwon JW, Huh SJ, Yoon YC, et al. Pelvic bone complications after radiation therapy of uterine cervical cancer: evaluation with MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:987–94.
Ugurluer G, Akbas T, Arpaci T, Ozcan N, Serin M. Bone complications after pelvic radiation therapy: evaluation with MRI. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014;58:334–40.
Bluemke DA, Fishman EK, Scott WW. Skeletal complications of radiation therapy. Radiographics. 1994;14:111–21.
Yoshioka H, Nakano T, Kandatsu S, Koga M, Itai Y, Tsujii H. MR imaging of radiation osteitis in the sacroiliac joints. Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;18:125–8.
Dutoit JC, Verstaete KL. MRI in multiple myeloma: a pictorial review of diagnostic and post-treatment findings. Insights Imaging. 2016;7:553–69.
Herman K-GA, Bollow M. Magnetic resonance imaging of sacroiliitis in patients with spondyloarthritis: correlation with anatomy and histology. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2014;186:230–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kreitner, KF. (2017). Radiological Assessment. In: Rommens, P., Hofmann, A. (eds) Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66572-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66572-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66570-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66572-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)