临床医学论著

CT与MRI在椎体压缩骨折良恶性诊断中的价值比较及影像特征分析

  • 张国良
展开
  • 中国人民解放军联勤保障部队第99〇医院医学影像科,河南驻马店 463000

收稿日期: 2025-03-18

  网络出版日期: 2026-06-24

The value comparison and image characteristics analysis of CT and MRI in the diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebralcompression fractures

  • ZHANG Guoliang
Expand
  • Medical Imaging Department, the 990th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force of the Chinese People′s Liberation Army, Zhumadian 463000, China

Received date: 2025-03-18

  Online published: 2026-06-24

摘要

目的: 探讨计算机断层扫描(CT)与磁共振成像(MRI)在椎体压缩骨折良恶性判断中的价值,分析其影像学特征,旨在为临床选择合理的影像学诊断方法提供数据支持。方法: 选取2022年10月至2024年10月中国人民解放军联勤保障部队990医院收治的椎体压缩骨折患者75例作为研究对象,所有患者均接受了CT与MRI检查,并经临床病理检查确诊。以病理检查结果为金标准,统计CT与MRI对椎体压缩骨折良恶性的诊断价值,分析椎体压缩骨折的CT和MRI影像学特征。结果: 病理检查结果显示,良、恶性椎体压缩骨折的例数分别为25例、50例。CT、MRI对良性椎体压缩骨折的检出例数分别为18例、23例,对恶性椎体压缩骨折的检出例数分别为40例、48例,良性检出率分别为72.00%、92.00%,恶性检出率分别为80.00%、96.00%。MRI 的良性检出率与CT相比差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.388,P>0.05),而MRI的恶性检出率高于CT(χ2=6.061,P<0.05),且MRI检查的灵敏度、阴性预测值、准确度均高于CT检查(P<0.05)。良性椎体压缩骨折患者椎间盘正常的出现率(12.00%)低于恶性椎体压缩骨折患者(76.00%),椎间盘压缩的出现率(80.00%)高于恶性椎体压缩骨折患者(14.00%)(P<0.05)。ROC曲线分析结果显示,CT和MRI鉴别良恶性椎体压缩骨折的曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.760和0.940,MRI的诊断价值更高,其灵敏度和特异度分别为96.00%和92.00%。结论: 相较于CT,MRI可有效提高椎体压缩骨折的良、恶性检出率,灵敏度、阴性预测值和准确度均高于CT。椎间盘间隙变化可作为良恶性椎体骨折的主要鉴别影像学特征。

本文引用格式

张国良 . CT与MRI在椎体压缩骨折良恶性诊断中的价值比较及影像特征分析[J]. 包头医学院学报, 2026 , 42(4) : 83 -87 . DOI: 10.16833/j.cnki.jbmc.2026.04.014

Abstract

Objective: To explore the value of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures, and to analyze their imaging features, so as to provide data support for clinical selection of reasonable imaging diagnosis methods. Methods: From October 2022 to October 2024, 75 patients with vertebral compression fractures admitted to the 990th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force of the Chinese People′s Liberation Army were selected as the research objects. All patients underwent CT and MRI examinations and were diagnosed by clinical pathological examination. Taking the pathological examination results as the gold standard, the diagnostic value of CT and MRI for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures was statistically analyzed, and the CT and MRI imaging features of vertebral compression fractures were analyzed. Results: The results of pathological examination showed that the number of benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures was 25 cases and 50 cases, respectively. The detection cases of benign vertebral compression fractures by CT and MRI were 18 cases and 23 cases, respectively. The detection cases of malignant vertebral compression fractures were 40 cases and 48 cases, respectively. The benign detection rates were 72.00% and 92.00%, and the malignant detection rates were 80.00% and 96.00%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the benign detection rate between MRI and CT (χ2=3.388, P>0.05), while the malignant detection rate of MRI was higher than that of CT (χ2=6.061, P<0.05), and the sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy of MRI were higher than those of CT (P<0.05). The occurrence rate of normal intervertebral disc in patients with benign vertebral compression fracture (12.00%) was lower than that in patients with malignant vertebral compression fracture (80.00%), and the occurrence rate of intervertebral disc compression (64.00%) was higher than that in patients with malignant vertebral compression fracture (14.00%) (P<0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of CT and MRI for distinguishing benign from malignant vertebral compression fractures were 0.760 and 0.940, respectively; the diagnostic value of MRI was higher, and its sensitivity and specificity were 96.00% and 92.00%, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with CT examination, MRI examination can effectively improve the detection rate of malignant vertebral compression fractures, and improve the sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy. Intervertebral disc space changes can be used as the main imaging features for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral fractures.

参考文献

[1] 何艾岭, 王清, 李广州. 骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折患者腰椎椎基静脉孔的CT影像解剖学研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2023, 41(3): 283-287.
[2] Daniel A, George A, LCM, et al. Diagnosis and management of vertebral compression fracture[J]. Am J Med, 2022, 135(7): 815-821.
[3] 陈泽正, 王方永, 张文捷, 等. 基于MRI的骨质疏松椎体压缩骨折患者椎旁肌特征定量分析研究[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2024, 34(6): 595-601, 619.
[4] 胥少汀, 葛宝丰, 徐印坎. 实用骨科学[M]. 北京: 人民军医出版社, 2005: 45-49.
[5] 周义, 赵御森, 张志敏, 等. SPECT/CT骨显像诊断新发骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的价值[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2019, 35(4): 630-632.
[6] 侯万星, 李洪伟, 郑欣, 等. 经皮椎体强化后骨水泥椎间盘渗漏与治疗前MRI发现的相关性[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(4): 504-509.
[7] 潘俊含, 张堃, 颜路悠, 等. 双能CT羟基磷灰石-水分离技术鉴别诊断急慢性椎体压缩骨折[J]. 中国介入影像与治疗学, 2020, 17(1): 35-38.
[8] 陈朝波, 白信信, 宋嘉维, 等. 胸腰椎结核合并病理性骨折误诊为骨质疏松性胸腰椎压缩骨折的临床治疗分析[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2021, 36(11): 1167-1169.
[9] 张卓, 回瑾, 邱建星. CT联合3.0T超导磁共振成像诊断评估脊柱骨压缩性骨折良恶性的价值研究[J]. 中国医学装备, 2021, 18(11): 68-72.
[10] 陈前程. 骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折SPECT-CT及MRI的对比分析[J]. 河北医学, 2019, 25(4): 539-542.
[11] 曲博, 石向明, 冯长明, 等. CT、MRI对椎体压缩骨折患者良恶性的鉴别价值及其影像学征象研究[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志, 2023, 21(12): 164-166.
[12] 邬晓勇, 毕文志, 崔翔, 等. 骨质疏松与恶性肿瘤转移致椎体压缩性骨折MRI、CT影像学特点及鉴别诊断[J]. 创伤外科杂志, 2020, 22(10): 727-732.
[13] 莫凌, 梁德, 黄锦菁, 等. 基于CT多平面重建及MRI分析新鲜骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折椎体内骨折区域形态类型及分布规律[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2020, 24(11): 1647-1653.
[14] 李孟磊, 葛英霖, 韩海林. 骨质疏松与溶骨性转移瘤致椎体压缩骨折的多模态影像应用研究[J]. 实用放射学杂志, 2020, 36(1): 95-98.
[15] 宋贤亮, 锁咏梅, 邱晓晖, 等. CT值及差值定量评估新鲜与陈旧骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的价值[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志, 2024, 22(2): 162-164.
文章导航

/