A comparison of imaging modalities for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis

  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Osteomyelitis is an increasingly common pathology that often poses a diagnostic challenge to clinicians. Accurate and timely diagnosis is critical to preventing complications that can result in the loss of life or limb. In addition to history, physical exam, and laboratory studies, diagnostic imaging plays an essential role in the diagnostic process. This narrative review article discusses various imaging modalities employed to diagnose osteomyelitis: plain films, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, bone scintigraphy, and positron emission tomography (PET). Articles were obtained from PubMed and screened for relevance to the topic of diagnostic imaging for osteomyelitis. The authors conclude that plain films are an appropriate first step, as they may reveal osteolytic changes and can help rule out alternative pathology. MRI is often the most appropriate second study, as it is highly sensitive and can detect bone marrow changes within days of an infection. Other studies such as CT, ultrasound, and bone scintigraphy may be useful in patients who cannot undergo MRI. CT is useful for identifying necrotic bone in chronic infections. Ultrasound may be useful in children or those with sickle-cell disease. Bone scintigraphy is particularly useful for vertebral osteomyelitis. Finally, PET scan has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity; however, its clinical application is limited by its high cost and poor availability. When used appropriately, diagnostic imaging can provide high sensitivity and specificity for detecting osteomyelitis, making radiographic evaluation a crucial step in the diagnostic process of this debilitating condition.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Smith, B. J., Buchanan, G. S., & Shuler, F. D. (2016). A comparison of imaging modalities for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. Marshall Journal of Medicine, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.18590/mjm.2016.vol2.iss3.10

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free