Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Konventionelle Röntgenaufnahme und konventionelle Tomografie für die Orthopädie

Aktueller Stellenwert

Conventional X-rays and conventional tomography in orthopaedics

Current status

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Trotz der zunehmenden Bedeutung von Sonografie, Computertomografie (CT) und Magnetresonanztomografie (MRT) ist das konventionelle Röntgenbild fester Bestandteil einer zielgerichteten orthopädischen Diagnostik. Zu den wesentlichen Vorteilen zählen das hohe lokale Auflösungsvermögen, der geringe Zeitaufwand, die vergleichsweise geringen Kosten und die weltweite Erfahrung. Präoperative Planung und Verlaufskontrollen sind ohne röntgenologisches Bild nicht denkbar.

Für zahlreiche pathologische Veränderungen ist das Röntgenbild für Diagnose und Therapie allein ausreichend (z. B. degenerative Veränderungen, Frakturen). Andererseits können frühe Veränderungen (z. B. Osteonekrosen) der Röntgendiagnostik entgehen. Hier haben CT und MRT die diagnostische Lücke schließen können und verschiedene spezielle Röntgentechniken ersetzt. Für die konventionelle Tomografie ergeben sich kaum noch Indikationen.

Abstract

Although sonography, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are common tools in radiology, conventional X-rays still have a place in orthopaedic diagnostic investigation. The advantages of radiographic imaging are high local resolution concerning bone, economy of time besides relatively low costs and worldwide experience. The conventional X-ray is indispensable for planning surgical procedures and clinical monitoring.

For several pathological processes an X-ray is sufficient for diagnosis and therapy (i.e. degeneration, fracture). Early changes of the bone (i.e. osteonecrosis) cannot be detected by X-ray. CT and MRI have closed the diagnostic gap. Indications for conventional tomography are rare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Brix G, Nekolla E, Griebel J (2005) Radiation exposure of patients from diagnostic and interventional X-ray procedures. Facts, assessment and trends. Radiologe 45(4): 340–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wirth CJ (2001) Röntgennativdiagnostik. In: Wirth CJ (Hrsg) Praxis der Orthopädie. Thieme, Stuttgart New York, S 18–28

  3. Mödder U (2001) Radiologische Diagnostik in Deutschland: Wird zuviel geröngt? Hausarzt 11: 34–36

    Google Scholar 

  4. Archer BR (2005) Recent history of the shielding of medical x-ray imaging facilities. Health Phys 88(6): 579–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schueler BA (1998) Clinical applications of basic x-ray physics principles. Radiographics 18(3): 729–744

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shaw G (2001) A clinician’s guide to digital X-ray systems. J R Soc Med 94(8): 391–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bell RA (1999) If plain-film x-ray loses money, why go digital? Diagn Imag (San Franc) 1999(Suppl): 13–15

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wirth S, Treitl M, Villain S et al. (2005) PACS: storage and retrieval of digital radiological image data. Radiologe 45(8): 690–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rau R, Lingg G, Wassenberg S, Schorn C, Scherer A (2005) Imaging techniques in rheumatology: conventional radiography in rheumatoid arthritis. Z Rheumatol 64(7): 473–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bearcroft PW, Blanchard TK, Dixon AK, Constant CR (2000) An assessment of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: literature review. Skeletal Radiol 29(12): 673–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bigliani LU, Morrison DS, April EW (1982) The morphology of the acromion and its relationship to the rotator cuff tears. Orthop Trans 10: 228

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schaffer F, Ernst J, Albrecht HJ (1990) X-ray and ultrasonic diagnosis of rheumatic-inflammatory diseases of the elbow. Radiologe 30(8): 388–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coonrad RW; Roush TF, Major NM, Basamania CJ (2005) The drop sign, a radiographic warning sign of elbow instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(3): 312–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schuind F, Alemzadeh S, Stallenberg B, Burny F (1996) Does the normal contralateral wrist provide the best reference for X-ray film easure ments of the pathologic wrist? J Hand Surg Am 21(1): 24–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klein HM, Vrsalovic V, Balas R, Neugebauer F (2002) Imaging diagnostics of the wrist: MRI and Arthrography/Arthro-CT. Rofo 174(2): 177–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Taouli B, Zaim S, Peterfy CG et al. (2004) Rheumatoid arthritis of the hand and wrist: comparison of three imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182(4): 937–943

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lequesne M (1961) False profile of the pelvis. A new radiographic incidence for the study of the hip. Its use in dysplasias and different coxopathies. Rev Rheum Mal Osteoartic 28: 643–652

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ito K, Minka MA 2nd, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R (2001) Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(2): 171–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schittich I (2001) MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of Perthes disease and epiphysiolysis of the head of the femur. Orthopade 30(8): 519–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pietsch M, Hofmann S (2006) Value of radiographic examination of the knee joint for the orthopedic surgeon. Radiologe 46(1): 55–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Beaconsfield T, Pintore E, Maffulli N, Petri GJ (1994) Radiological measurements in patellofemoral disorders. A review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 308: 18–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ficat P (1967) Gonarthrosis of static origin, VII. The patella in gonarthrosis of static origin. Rev Chir Orthop Reparat Apparat Mot 53(2): 161–164

    Google Scholar 

  23. Laurin CA, Levesque HP, Dussault R, Labelle H, Peides JP (1978) The abnormal lateral patellofemoral angle: a diagnostic roentgenographic sign of recurrent patellar subluxation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(1): 55–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eckhoff DG, Winter WG (1994) Femoral and tibial torsion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 302: 2–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lotz I, Leinung S, Kosling S (1999) Stress X-ray of the ankle joint: a cost-benefit analysis. Radiologe 39(1): 30–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bigos SJ, Battie MC, Spengler DM et al. (1992) A longitudinal, prospective study of industrial back injury reporting. Clin Orthop Relat Res 279: 21-34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Coste J, Paolaggi JB, Spira A (1991) Reliability of interpretation of plain lumbar spine radiographs in benign, mechanical low-back pain. Spine 16(4): 426–428

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van den Bosch MA, Hollingworth W, Kinmonth AL, Dixon AK (2004) Evidence against the use of lumbar spine radiography for low back pain. Clin Radiol 59(1): 69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) (1994) Acute low back problems in adults. Clinical practice guideline number 14. AHCPR publication No. 95–0642. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, USA

  30. Beuerlein MJ, Raso, VJ, Hill DL, Moreau MJ, Mahood JK (2003) Changes in alignment of the scoliotic spine in response to lateral bending. Spine 28(7): 693–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Freyschmidt J (1998) Standards and diagnostic strategies in diagnosis of bone tumors and tumor-simulating lesions. Radiologe 38(4): 287–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Erlemann R (2001) Radiological diagnosis of bone tumors, Vol 1. Radiologe 41(10): 930–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Erlemann R (2001) Radiological diagnosis of bone tumors, Vol 2. Radiologe 41(11): 1009–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Menninger H, Meixner C, Sondgen W (1995) Progression and repair in radiographs of hands and forefeet in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 22(6): 1048–1054

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopädie, Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg

    J. Steinhagen, J. P. Petersen & W. Rüther

Authors
  1. J. Steinhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. P. Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Rüther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Steinhagen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steinhagen, J., Petersen, J.P. & Rüther, W. Konventionelle Röntgenaufnahme und konventionelle Tomografie für die Orthopädie. Orthopäde 35, 605–615 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-006-0946-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-006-0946-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation