Diagnostic Performance of Plain Film, Ultrasonography, and Computed Tomography in Nasal Bone Fractures: A Systematic Review

Kun Hwang, Joon Soo Jung, Hun Kim, Kun Hwang, Joon Soo Jung, Hun Kim

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) of plain film (PF), ultrasonography (USG), and computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing nasal bone fractures (NBFs).

Methods: In a search of PubMed and Scopus, "nasal bone fracture" AND "X-ray OR CT OR USG OR MRI" were searched. Among the 369 titles from PubMed and 379 titles from Scopus, 257 duplicate titles were excluded and 491 titles were reviewed. Among them, 36 full articles were reviewed. From these, 21 were excluded and 1 mined article was added; thus, 16 articles were reviewed.

Results: The accuracy of CT (94.4% ± 2.3%) was significantly higher (P < .001) than that of USG (85.0% ± 3.6%). The accuracy of USG was significantly higher (P < .001) than that of PF (67.7% ± 4.7%). Computed tomography (89.3% ± 3.1%) and USG (87.2% ± 3.3%) were significantly more sensitive than PF (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). The specificity of CT (94.2% ± 2.3%) was significantly higher (P = .001) than that of USG (87.4% ± 3.3%). The specificity of USG was significantly higher (P < .001) than that of PF (67.8% ± 4.7%). Among the PF techniques, combining a lateral view and the Water's view (71.8% ± 4.5%) had significantly higher accuracy than a lateral view alone (62.4% ± 4.8%) or the Water's view alone (61.0% ± 4.9%). In USG, there was no significant difference (P = .300) in accuracy among lateral and dorsal views (95.8% ± 2.0%), a lateral view alone (84.2% ± 3.7%), and a dorsal view alone (84.2% ± 3.6%).

Conclusion: The results of this review might be helpful in choosing the most appropriate diagnostic tool in patients suspected having NBF.

Keywords: X-ray computed; X-ray film; bone; diagnosis; fractures; nasal bone; sensitivity and specificity; tomography; ultrasonography.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Selection process of the articles included in this study.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Diagnostic performance of each method. CT indicates computed tomography; NPV, negative predictive value; PF, plain film; PPV, positive predictive value; USG, ultrasonography. *P < .05.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Diagnostic performance of plain film. NPV indicates negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value. *P < .05.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Diagnostic performance of ultrasonography. NPV indicates negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value. *P < .05.

References

    1. Hwang K, You SH, Kim SG, Lee SI. Analysis of nasal bone fractures; a six-year study of 503 patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17(2):261–264.
    1. Becker OJ. Nasal fractures. Arch Otolaryngol. 1948;48(3):344–361.
    1. Dorobisz H, Voegeli E, Hardt N. Conventional radiology and computed tomography in facial fractures. Rontgenblatter. 1983;36(12):428–433.
    1. Thiede O, Krömer JH, Rudack C, Stoll W, Osada N, Schmäl F. Comparison of ultrasonography and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of nasal fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(5):434–439.
    1. Gürkov R, Krause E, Clevert D. Sonography versus plain X rays in diagnosis of nasal fractures. Am J Rhinol. 2008;22(6):613–616.
    1. Lee MH, Cha JG, Hong HS, et al. Comparison of high-resolution ultrasonography and computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal fractures. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(6):717–723.
    1. Mohammadi A, Javadrashid R, Pedram A, Masudi S. Comparison of ultrasonography and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures. Iran J Radiol. 2009;6(1):7–11.
    1. Kim BH, Seo HS, Kim AY, et al. The diagnostic value of the sagittal multiplanar reconstruction CT images for nasal bone fractures. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(4):308–314.
    1. Javadrashid R, Khatoonabad M, Shams N, Esmaeili F, Khamnei HJ. Comparison of ultrasonography with computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures. Dermatomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(8):486–491.
    1. Mohammadi A, Ghasemi-Rad M. Nasal bone fracture-ultrasonography or computed tomography? Med Ultrason. 2011;13(4):292–295.
    1. Kunitskiĭ VS, Semenov SA. Diagnostics of nasal bone fractures with the use of ultrasound study techniques. Vestn Otorinolaringol. 2013;(1):72–76.
    1. Lou YT, Li HL, Lee SS, et al. Conductor-assisted nasal sonography: an innovative technique for rapid and accurate detection of nasal bone fracture. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(1):306–311.
    1. Baek HJ, Kim DW, Ryu JH, Lee YJ. Identification of nasal bone fractures on conventional radiography and facial CT: comparison of the diagnostic accuracy in different imaging modalities and analysis of interobserver reliability. Iran J Radiol. 2013;10(3):140–147.
    1. Çil Y, Kahraman E. An analysis of 45 patients with pure nasal fractures. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2013;19(2):152–156.
    1. Atiggechi S, Baradaranfar MH, Karimi G, et al. Diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of nasal fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(1):e51–e53.
    1. Zhong Z, Fan X, Lian Z, Cheng Z, Zhuang Y. Clinical analysis of 202 nasal bone fractures cases. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2014;28(23):1842–1844.
    1. Masoomi A, Gharibvand MM, Rekabi H, Zakaeifar M, Khorami E, Saki N. Comparison of ultrasonography and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of new nasal bone fractures in adults. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2015;12:1–6.
    1. Lee IS, Lee JH, Woo CK, et al. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures: a comparison with conventional radiography and computed tomography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(2):413–418.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit