The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:2464-2471.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02691
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activities for this article:
 CME 4: October, November, December 2005
Trauma Test 10: Winter 2006
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Termaat, M.F.
Right arrow Articles by Haarman, H.J.T.M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Termaat, M.F.
Right arrow Articles by Haarman, H.J.T.M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Accuracy of Diagnostic Imaging for the Assessment of Chronic Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

M.F. Termaat, MD1, P.G.H.M. Raijmakers, MD, PhD1, H.J. Scholten, MD1, F.C. Bakker, MD, PhD1, P. Patka, MD, PhD1 and H.J.T.M. Haarman, MD, PhD1

1 Departments of Surgery and Traumatology (M.F.T., H.J.S., F.C.B., P.P., and H.J.T.M.H.) and Nuclear Medicine (P.G.H.M.R.), VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address for M.F. Termaat: mf.termaat{at}vumc.nl. E-mail address for P.G.H.M. Raijmakers: p.raijmakers{at}vumc.nl. E-mail address for H.J. Scholten: h_scholten{at}hotmail.com. E-mail address for F.C. Bakker: fc.bakker{at}vumc.nl. E-mail address for P. Patka: p.patka{at}vumc.nl. E-mail address for H.J.T.M. Haarman: hjtm.haarman{at}vumc.nl

Investigation performed at the Departments of Surgery and Traumatology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from The Association of University Hospitals (VAZ) and Health Care Research Board (CVZ). None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: A variety of diagnostic imaging techniques is available for excluding or confirming chronic osteomyelitis. Until now, an evidence-based algorithmic model for choosing the most suitable imaging technique has been lacking. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of current imaging modalities in the diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted with a comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents databases to identify clinical studies on chronic osteomyelitis that evaluated diagnostic imaging modalities. The value of each imaging technique was studied by determining its sensitivity and specificity compared with the results of histological analysis, findings on culture, and clinical follow-up of more than six months.

Results: A total of twenty-three clinical studies in which the accuracy was described for radiography (two studies), magnetic resonance imaging (five), computed tomography (one), bone scintigraphy (seven), leukocyte scintigraphy (thirteen), gallium scintigraphy (one), combined bone and leukocyte scintigraphy (six), combined bone and gallium scintigraphy (three), and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (four) were included in the review. No meta-analysis was performed with respect to computed tomography, gallium scintigraphy, and radiography. Pooled sensitivity demonstrated that fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography was the most sensitive technique, with a sensitivity of 96% (95% confidence interval, 88% to 99%) compared with 82% (95% confidence interval, 70% to 89%) for bone scintigraphy, 61% (95% confidence interval, 43% to 76%) for leukocyte scintigraphy, 78% (95% confidence interval, 72% to 83%) for combined bone and leukocyte scintigraphy, and 84% (95% confidence interval, 69% to 92%) for magnetic resonance imaging. Pooled specificity demonstrated that bone scintigraphy had the lowest specificity, with a specificity of 25% (95% confidence interval, 16% to 36%) compared with 60% (95% confidence interval, 38% to 78%) for magnetic resonance imaging, 77% (95% confidence interval, 63% to 87%) for leukocyte scintigraphy, 84% (95% confidence interval, 75% to 90%) for combined bone and leukocyte scintigraphy, and 91% (95% confidence interval, 81% to 95%) for fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. The sensitivity of leukocyte scintigraphy in detecting chronic osteomyelitis in the peripheral skeleton was 84% (95% confidence interval, 72% to 91%) compared with 21% (95% confidence interval, 11% to 38%) for its detection of chronic osteomyelitis in the axial skeleton. The specificity of leukocyte scintigraphy in the axial skeleton was 60% (95% confidence interval, 39% to 78%) compared with 80% (95% confidence interval, 61% to 91%) for the peripheral skeleton.

Conclusions: Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography has the highest diagnostic accuracy for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis. Leukocyte scintigraphy has an appropriate diagnostic accuracy in the peripheral skeleton, but fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is superior for detecting chronic osteomyelitis in the axial skeleton.

Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. S. Davenport, R. K. J. Brown, and K. A. Frey
Utility of Delayed Whole-Body Bone Scintigraphy After Directed Three-Phase Scintigraphy
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2009; 193(2): 338 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Microbiol. Rev.Home page
R. Kumar, S. Basu, D. Torigian, V. Anand, H. Zhuang, and A. Alavi
Role of Modern Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis of Infection in the Era of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography
Clin. Microbiol. Rev., January 1, 2008; 21(1): 209 - 224.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. E. Pakos, H. D. Koumoulis, A. D. Fotopoulos, and J. P. A. Ioannidis
Osteomyelitis: Antigranulocyte Scintigraphy with 99mTc Radiolabeled Monoclonal Antibodies for Diagnosis Meta-Analysis
Radiology, December 1, 2007; 245(3): 732 - 741.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. S. Wu, T. Gorbachova, W. B. Morrison, and A. H. Haims
Imaging-Guided Bone Biopsy for Osteomyelitis: Are There Factors Associated with Positive or Negative Cultures?
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2007; 188(6): 1529 - 1534.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
A. Kapoor, S. Page, M. LaValley, D. R. Gale, and D. T. Felson
Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Foot Osteomyelitis: A Meta-analysis
Arch Intern Med, January 22, 2007; 167(2): 125 - 132.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]