Comparison of different radiographic methods to measure the slip angle in children with slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE).

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Acta radiologica Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1177/02841851241271999
Mikael Lindell, Jens Nilsson, Bengt Herngren, Jakob Örtegren, Margaretha Stenmarker, Carl Johan Tiderius, Piotr Michno
{"title":"Comparison of different radiographic methods to measure the slip angle in children with slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE).","authors":"Mikael Lindell, Jens Nilsson, Bengt Herngren, Jakob Örtegren, Margaretha Stenmarker, Carl Johan Tiderius, Piotr Michno","doi":"10.1177/02841851241271999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of patients with slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) requires imaging diagnostics of good quality and accurate measurement of the degree of slippage. In Sweden, three different radiological methods are commonly used: the calcar femorale method; the Billing method; and the Head-shaft angle described by Southwick.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether any of the three most common methods used in Sweden to measure the slip angle was more useful and reproducible than the others.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Two experienced orthopaedists measured the slip angle in preoperative hip radiographs. Intra- and inter-observer variability between the two experienced observers and the reported value by clinicians who treated the child with SCFE was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) confidence interval (CI) between the two experienced observers and the reporting clinicians overlapped for the three methods. In 37% of the cases, the difference was more than 5° between the experienced observers' measurement and the reported value by clinicians. The two experienced orthopaedists' intra- and inter-observer variability was low.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The observer's experience is more important than the method of choice when measuring the slip angle in SCFE. The research group recommends the calcar femorale method due to its feasibility on the versatile and commonly used frog leg lateral view.</p>","PeriodicalId":7143,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851241271999","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The management of patients with slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) requires imaging diagnostics of good quality and accurate measurement of the degree of slippage. In Sweden, three different radiological methods are commonly used: the calcar femorale method; the Billing method; and the Head-shaft angle described by Southwick.

Purpose: To evaluate whether any of the three most common methods used in Sweden to measure the slip angle was more useful and reproducible than the others.

Material and methods: Two experienced orthopaedists measured the slip angle in preoperative hip radiographs. Intra- and inter-observer variability between the two experienced observers and the reported value by clinicians who treated the child with SCFE was evaluated.

Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) confidence interval (CI) between the two experienced observers and the reporting clinicians overlapped for the three methods. In 37% of the cases, the difference was more than 5° between the experienced observers' measurement and the reported value by clinicians. The two experienced orthopaedists' intra- and inter-observer variability was low.

Conclusion: The observer's experience is more important than the method of choice when measuring the slip angle in SCFE. The research group recommends the calcar femorale method due to its feasibility on the versatile and commonly used frog leg lateral view.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较测量股骨头骺滑脱(SCFE)儿童滑脱角的不同放射学方法。
背景:股骨头骺滑脱(SCFE)患者的治疗需要高质量的影像诊断和对滑脱程度的精确测量。在瑞典,通常使用三种不同的放射学方法:股骨小腿法、Billing法和Southwick描述的头轴角法。目的:评估在瑞典最常用的三种测量滑脱角的方法中,是否有哪一种比其他方法更有用、更具有可重复性:材料: 两名经验丰富的骨科医生测量术前髋关节X光片上的滑移角。评估了两位经验丰富的观察者之间以及治疗 SCFE 患儿的临床医生报告值之间的观察者内部和观察者之间的变异性:结果:在三种方法中,两名经验丰富的观察者与报告的临床医生之间的类内相关系数(ICC)置信区间(CI)是重叠的。在 37% 的病例中,经验丰富的观察者的测量值与临床医生的报告值相差超过 5°。两名经验丰富的骨科医生的观察者内部和观察者之间的差异较小:结论:在测量 SCFE 滑移角时,观察者的经验比选择的方法更重要。研究小组推荐使用股骨小腿法,因为该方法在多用途和常用的蛙腿侧视图上具有可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta radiologica
Acta radiologica 医学-核医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Radiologica publishes articles on all aspects of radiology, from clinical radiology to experimental work. It is known for articles based on experimental work and contrast media research, giving priority to scientific original papers. The distinguished international editorial board also invite review articles, short communications and technical and instrumental notes.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging for glioma based on a deep learning reconstruction approach with the denoising method. Predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer based on ultrasound radiofrequency time-series analysis. Comparison of different radiographic methods to measure the slip angle in children with slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). Radiographic assessment of incidental bone lesions of the proximal humerus: a prevalence study. Tract embolization with gelatin sponge after percutaneous transhepatic portal vein intervention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1