Comparison between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in clinical diagnosis and treatment of tibial platform fractures

Table 1 Comparison of conformity rates among types of diagnosis, n (%)

AO classification	Surgical pathology, case	NMR, n = 120	CT, n = 120	χ2	P value
B1	33	33 (100.00)	27 (81.82)	19.998	0.001
B2	16	16 (100.00)	13 (81.25)	20.690	0.001
B3	10	8 (80.00)	7 (70.00)	2.672	0.102
C1	32	31 (96.88)	26 (81.25)	12.542	0.001
C2	20	18 (90.00)	17 (85.00)	1.143	0.285
C3	9	9 (100.00)	9 (100.00)	0.001	1.001

CT: Computed tomography; NMR: Nuclear magnetic resonance.

Table 2 Comparison of the two inspection methods

Display effect, points	NMR, n = 120	CT, n = 120	t	P value
Bone loss	1.53 (0.31)	1.49 (0.33)	0.968	0.334
Fracture site	1.61 (0.24)	1.59 (0.25)	0.632	0.528
Fracture displacement	1.12 (0.29)	1.09 (0.26)	0.844	0.400
Fracture comminution	1.31 (0.31)	1.28 (0.33)	0.726	0.469

CT: Computed tomography; NMR: Nuclear magnetic resonance.

Table 3 Comparison of the detection rate of fracture, the detection rate of compound injury and the accuracy of fracture classification, n (%)

Items, total = 120, combined injury = 108	NMR	CT	χ2	P value
Fracture detection rate	116 (96.67)	108 (90.00)	3.576	0.059
Fracture classification accuracy	115 (95.83)	99 (82.50)	9.196	0.002
Combined injury detection rate	105 (97.22)	103 (95.37)	0.480	0.489

CT: Computed tomography; NMR: Nuclear magnetic resonance.