Abordaje sistemático en radiografía convencional de las lesiones óseas

  1. José Ángel Santos Sánchez 1
  2. María del Mar López González 2
  3. Luís R. Ramos Pascua 3
  1. 1 H. Universitario de Salamanca
  2. 2 Centro de Salud. Villoria. Salamanca
  3. 3 Servicio de Traumatología y Cirugía Ortopédica. Hospital Universitario de León
Show affiliations +
Journal:
Pediatría integral

ISSN: 2695-6640

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 20

Issue: Especial 16

Pages: 48-56

Type: Article

GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Pediatría integral

Abstract

Plain radiograph is usually the first imaging techniquefor a suspected bone lesions since it is inexpensive and easilyobtainable. It is also the best for assessment of general radiological features of the bone lesions. One of the importantfunctions in interpreting musculoskeletal radiographs is toidentify a lesion and once such a lesion is identified must alsobe able to provide a reasonable differential diagnosis for thelesion. A rational and systematic approach can often result in ashort differential diagnosis. The approach to the radiographicdiagnosis of bone lesions consists of analyzing the lesion in anorganized fashion, with attention to the specific radiographicfeatures of lesions number and size, location, mineralization,margins –zone of transition–, cortical involvement, periostealreaction, and presence of a soft-tissue component. We willaddress each of these issues in our approach to bone lesions

Bibliographic References

  • 1. Frush DP, Frush KS. The ALARA concept in pediatric imaging: building bridges between radiology and emergency medicine: consensus conference on imaging safety and quality for children in the emergency setting, Feb. 23-24, 2008, Orlando, FL - Executive Summary. Pediatr Radiol. 2008; 38(Suppl 4): S629-32. 2.
  • 2. Helms CA. Fundamentals of skeletal radiology. 3rd edition. Philadelphia (PA): WB Saunders;2004.
  • 3. Fraser and Paré’s Diagnosis of Diseases of the Chest. 4th ed, 4 vols. Edited by Richard S. Fraser, MD, Nestor L. Müller, MD, PhD, Neil Colman, MD, and P. D. Paré, MD. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1999. ISBN 0-7216-6194-7.
  • 4. Nichols RE, Dixon LB. Radiographic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Radiol Clin North Am. 2011;49(6):1095-114.
  • 5. Miller TT. Bone tumors and tumorlike conditions: analysis with conventional radiography. Radiology 2008;246(3): 662–74.
  • 6. Superti-Furga A, Unger S. Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal Disorders:2006 Revision. Am J Med Genet. 2007;143A:1-18.
  • 7. Madewell JE, Ragsdale BD, Sweet DE. Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Part I. Internal margins. Radiol Clin North Am 1981; 19:715–748.
  • 8. Costelloe CM, Madewell J. Radiography in the Initial Diagnosis of Primary Bone Tumors. AJR 2013;200:1,3-7.
  • 9. Sweet DE, Madewell JE, Ragsdale BD. Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Part III. Matrix patterns. Radiol Clin North Am 1981; 19:785–814.
  • 10. Lodwick GS, Wilson AJ, Farrell C, Virtama P, Dittrich F. Determining growth rates of focal lesions of bone from radiographs. Radiology 1980; 134:577–583.
  • 11. Ragsdale BD, Madewell JE, Sweet DE. Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Part II. Periosteal reactions. Radiol Clin North Am 1981; 19:749–783.
  • 12. Wenaden AET, Szyszko TA, Saifuddin A (2005) Imaging of periosteal reactions associated with focal lesions of bone. Clin Radiol 60:439–456.