Fracture healing: direct magnification versus conventional radiography

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential of magnification radiography in diagnosing fracture healing and assessing its complications. Seventy-three patients with fractures or who had undergone osteotomy were radiographed with both conventional (non-magnified) and magnification (5-fold) techniques. Since 10 patients were radiographed twice and 1 three times, 83 radiographs using each technique were obtained. All radiographs were analysed and the findings correlated with the patients' follow-up studies. The microfocal X-ray unit used for magnification radiography had a focal spot size of 20–130 μm. As an imaging system, digital luminescence radiography was employed with magnification, while normal film-screen systems were used with conventional radiography. Manification radiography proved superior to conventional radiography in 47% of cases: endosteal and periosteal callus formations were sen earlier and better in 26 cases, and osseous union could be evaluated with greater certainty in 33 cases. In 49% of cases magnification radiography was equal and in 4% inferior to conventional radiography. Additionally an “inter-observer analysis” was carried out. Anatomical and pathological structures were classified into one of four grades. Results were significantly (P < 0.01) better using magnification radiography. We conclude that the magnification technique is a good method for monitoring fracture healing in its early stages.