Keywords:
Bones, Haematologic, Oncology, Digital radiography, Experimental, Comparative studies, Haematologic diseases
Authors:
A. Moraux, B. DUTOUQUET, X. LELEU, M.-H. VIEILLARD, A. Cotten, N. Boutry; Lille/FR
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2011/C-0971
Results
There was no significant difference between the two imaging modalities,
as 292 out of 309 bone lesions (112 vertebral collapses,
197 osteolytic lesions (Fig.1)) were detected both by EOS® system and radiography.
Ten bone lesions were not seen by EOS® system (vertebral collapses essentially and costal lesions) whereas 7 bone lesions were not detected by radiographs (skull lesions essentially).
EOS® system allowed to study as good or better than radiographs,
skull lesions (Fig.2-3),
peripheral bone lesions (Fig.4-10) and soft tissue lesions (Fig.11-12).
However,
vertebral collapses were better studied on radiographs,
especially in overweighted patients (Fig.13-16),
because of impaired image quality with EOS® system.
Average radiation dose with EOS® system was 8,4 times less than radiography.
Most patients found the EOS® system examination to be more comfortable than multiple radiographic incidences.