| AZ | EN | RU

STATISTICS


INFORMATIVENESS OF RADIOLOGICAL IMAGING METHODS OF COMBINED JOINT TRAUMA
Gasimzadeh G.Ş., Gasimov N.A.

DOI: 10.61775/2413-3302.v1i35.04

SUMMARY
In a study of 969 patients injured for various reasons, 90 people had joint injury identified using various radioimaging methods. The study carried out a comparative analysis of the information content of radiation research methods in identifying joint damage. When identifying joint injuries resulting from car accidents, an X-ray examination can be considered a more effective research method because of its specificity, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations – because of their sensitivity. The specificity of an X-ray examination is 63.2%, sensitivity – 95.7%, CT specificity – 12.5%, sensitivity – 100.0%, MRI sensitivity – 100.0%. When identifying joint injuries, CT can be considered a more informative research method in terms of specificity (80.0%) and sensitivity (100.0%), and MRI – in sensitivity (100.0%). Thus, multislice MRI can provide accurate imaging in a short period of time in identifying images of joints and lesions.
Keywords: joint trauma, X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography

REFERENCES
  1. Айтбай Г.С., Жолдыбай Ж.Ж.. Магнитно-резонансная артрография и компьютерно-томографическая артрография в диагностике повреждений суставов (обзор литературы // Вестник Казахского Национального медицинского университета, no. 2, 2020, pp. 131-134.
  2. Gaillard F, Worsley C, Knipe H. et al. Acromioclavicular joint injury. Reference article, Radiopaedia.org (Accessed on 02 Apr 2024). doi.org/10.53347/rID-843.
  3. Брюханов А.В., Клыжин М.А.. Комплексное применение лучевых методов диагностики при обследовании больных с травматическими повреждениями коленных суставов // Сибирский журнал клинической и экспериментальной медицины, vol. 23, no. 2, 2008, pp. 20-24.
  4. Zhang W, Wang JW, Hu YL, Zhu JH. Comparison of four imaging examinations of shoulder joint injury in forensic expertise // Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2011 Feb;27(1):39-42. Chinese. PMID: 21542226.
  5. Qafarov İ.A. Biostatistika. Bakı, Təbib, 2022, 240 s. ISBN: 978-9952-37-813-9.
  6. Tang L, Zhou W, Bai L, Wu C, Xiong C, Yan Y, Chen S. Comparison of diagnostic performance of X ray, CT and MRI in patients with surgically confirmed subtle Lisfranc injuries // Exp Ther Med. 2024 Feb 29;27(4):174. doi: 10.3892/etm.2024.12462.
  7. Avci M, Kozaci N. Comparison of X-Ray Imaging and Computed Tomography Scan in the Evaluation of Knee Trauma // Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Sep 23;55(10):623. doi: 10.3390/medicina55100623.
  8. Fotiadou A, Patel A, Morgan T, Karantanas AH. Wrist injuries in young adults: the diagnostic impact of CT and MRI // Eur J Radiol. 2011 Feb;77(2):235-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.05.011.
  9. Ye QL, Li J, Hou JD, Cai L, Xiong X, Wang HJ. Comparison of multislice spiral CT and MRI in diagnosis of occult fracture of knee joint with meniscus and ligament injury // Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2022 Oct 25;35(10):967-70. Chinese. doi: 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2022.10.011.