Reliability in 2-Dimensional On-track/Off-track Measurements: Analysis of Key Values for Glenohumeral Bone Loss.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1177/23259671241310441
Anthony J Magee, Jonathan C Horng, Liang S Zhou, Willam E Daner, Hyeong J Ahn, Kyong S Min
{"title":"Reliability in 2-Dimensional On-track/Off-track Measurements: Analysis of Key Values for Glenohumeral Bone Loss.","authors":"Anthony J Magee, Jonathan C Horng, Liang S Zhou, Willam E Daner, Hyeong J Ahn, Kyong S Min","doi":"10.1177/23259671241310441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The relationship between glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs), which is known as the glenoid track, has been well described in the literature. Off-track lesions have been found to be associated with recurrent shoulder instability.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the intraobserver and interobserver reliability in glenoid track measurement using 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic medical records between 2009 and 2019 were reviewed for patients with known shoulder instability and bone loss. Using 2D CT, fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons and orthopaedic residents measured glenoid loss and humeral head bone loss to calculate the glenoid track and to assess for on-track and off-track lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 38 patients met the inclusion criteria. For fellowship-trained surgeons, there was moderate intraobserver reliability when assessing the glenoid diameter (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.704) and HSI (ICC, 0.720). There was good reliability when evaluating glenoid defects (ICC, 0.761) and glenoid track (ICC, 0.825). Intraobserver assessment of on-track and off-track lesions according to kappa criteria was moderate (κ = 0.531; <i>P</i> < .001). The interobserver reliability among fellowship-trained surgeons for the glenoid track was good (ICC, 0.762); the reliability measurement for the glenoid defect (ICC, 0.672), glenoid diameter (ICC, 0.627), and HSI (ICC, 0.520) were moderate; and the on-track and off-track assessments were moderate (κ = 0.405; <i>P</i> < .001). For the residents, there was moderate intraobserver reliability when assessing the glenoid diameter (ICC, 0.633), glenoid defect (ICC, 0.709), HSI (ICC, 0.536), and glenoid track (ICC, 0.708). Interobserver reliability within the residents was moderate for the glenoid diameter (ICC, 0.542), glenoid defect (ICC, 0.574), and glenoid track (ICC, 0.629) and poor for the HSI (ICC, 0.292). Determination of on- and off-track lesions among residents was fair (κ = 0.234; <i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among fellowship-trained surgeons, both the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of measuring the glenoid track on 2D CT were good; however, agreement on whether lesions were on-track or off-track was only moderate. The reliability among residents was moderate; however, their agreement on whether lesions were on-track or off-track was poor.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"13 3","pages":"23259671241310441"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11909657/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241310441","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The relationship between glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs), which is known as the glenoid track, has been well described in the literature. Off-track lesions have been found to be associated with recurrent shoulder instability.

Purpose: To assess the intraobserver and interobserver reliability in glenoid track measurement using 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT).

Study design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Electronic medical records between 2009 and 2019 were reviewed for patients with known shoulder instability and bone loss. Using 2D CT, fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons and orthopaedic residents measured glenoid loss and humeral head bone loss to calculate the glenoid track and to assess for on-track and off-track lesions.

Results: A total of 38 patients met the inclusion criteria. For fellowship-trained surgeons, there was moderate intraobserver reliability when assessing the glenoid diameter (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.704) and HSI (ICC, 0.720). There was good reliability when evaluating glenoid defects (ICC, 0.761) and glenoid track (ICC, 0.825). Intraobserver assessment of on-track and off-track lesions according to kappa criteria was moderate (κ = 0.531; P < .001). The interobserver reliability among fellowship-trained surgeons for the glenoid track was good (ICC, 0.762); the reliability measurement for the glenoid defect (ICC, 0.672), glenoid diameter (ICC, 0.627), and HSI (ICC, 0.520) were moderate; and the on-track and off-track assessments were moderate (κ = 0.405; P < .001). For the residents, there was moderate intraobserver reliability when assessing the glenoid diameter (ICC, 0.633), glenoid defect (ICC, 0.709), HSI (ICC, 0.536), and glenoid track (ICC, 0.708). Interobserver reliability within the residents was moderate for the glenoid diameter (ICC, 0.542), glenoid defect (ICC, 0.574), and glenoid track (ICC, 0.629) and poor for the HSI (ICC, 0.292). Determination of on- and off-track lesions among residents was fair (κ = 0.234; P < .001).

Conclusion: Among fellowship-trained surgeons, both the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of measuring the glenoid track on 2D CT were good; however, agreement on whether lesions were on-track or off-track was only moderate. The reliability among residents was moderate; however, their agreement on whether lesions were on-track or off-track was poor.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Examining Planar Contributions to Knee Total Joint Moment Between Women and Men During Loaded Gait Tasks. Midterm Outcomes of Hybrid Transepiphyseal ACL Reconstruction With Soft Tissue Quadriceps Tendon Autograft in Skeletally Immature Athletes. Pain and Hardware Removal After Tibial Tubercle Osteotomy: Incidence, Associated Factors, and Outcomes. Rethinking the Schenck Classification for Multiligament Knee Injuries: Evaluating Whether the Schenck KD Grade Is Associated With the Presence of Vascular or Neurological Injuries in a Multicenter Study With 144 Patients. Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Matched-Pair Long-Term Follow-up Study.
×
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