Comprehensive comparison of dual-energy computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of bone marrow edema and fracture lines in acute vertebral fractures

Objectives To compare dual-energy CT (DECT) and MRI for assessing presence and extent of traumatic bone marrow edema (BME) and fracture line depiction in acute vertebral fractures. Methods Eighty-eight consecutive patients who underwent dual-source DECT and 3-T MRI of the spine were retrospectively analyzed. Five radiologists assessed all vertebrae for presence and extent of BME and for identification of acute fracture lines on MRI and, after 12 weeks, on DECT series. Additionally, image quality, image noise, and diagnostic confidence for overall diagnosis of acute vertebral fracture were assessed. Quantitative analysis of CT numbers was performed by a sixth radiologist. Two radiologists analyzed MRI and grayscale DECT series to define the reference standard. Results For assessing BME presence and extent, DECT showed high sensitivity (89% and 84%, respectively) and specificity (98% in both), and similarly high diagnostic confidence compared to MRI (2.30 vs. 2.32; range 0–3) for the detection of BME (p = .72). For evaluating acute fracture lines, MRI achieved high specificity (95%), moderate sensitivity (76%), and a significantly lower diagnostic confidence compared to DECT (2.42 vs. 2.62, range 0–3) (p < .001). A cutoff value of − 0.43 HU provided a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 90% for diagnosing BME, with an overall AUC of 0.96. Conclusions DECT and MRI provide high diagnostic confidence and image quality for assessing acute vertebral fractures. While DECT achieved high overall diagnostic accuracy in the analysis of BME presence and extent, MRI provided moderate sensitivity and lower confidence for evaluating fracture lines. Key Points • In the setting of spinal trauma, dual-energy CT (DECT) is highly accurate in the evaluation of acute vertebral fractures and bone marrow edema presence and extent. • MRI provides moderate sensitivity and lower diagnostic confidence for the depiction of acute fracture lines, when compared to DECT, which might result in potentially inaccurate and underestimated severity assessment of injuries in certain cases when no fracture lines are visible on MRI. • DECT may represent a valid imaging alternative to MRI in specific settings of acute spinal trauma and in follow-up examinations, especially in elderly or unstable patients and in cases of subtle or complex orientated fracture lines.