Comparative sensitivity and accuracy of 24 vs. 18 MHz ultrasound probes for the diagnosis of flexor tendon repair integrity

Sean Renfree, Nathaniel B. Hinckley, Nirvikar Dahiya, Nan Zhang, Kevin J. Renfree
{"title":"Comparative sensitivity and accuracy of 24 vs. 18 MHz ultrasound probes for the diagnosis of flexor tendon repair integrity","authors":"Sean Renfree,&nbsp;Nathaniel B. Hinckley,&nbsp;Nirvikar Dahiya,&nbsp;Nan Zhang,&nbsp;Kevin J. Renfree","doi":"10.1002/ajum.12359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To determine whether a 24 MHz transducer significantly improves sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in evaluating flexor tendon repair integrity compared with an 18 MHz transducer.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred and twelve cadaveric digits were randomised to an intact repair or simulated ‘failed’ repair, and to a two- or eight-strand repair of a flexor digitorum profundus laceration. A blinded sonologist evaluated specimens in static mode using 18 and 24 MHz transducers. Gaps were remeasured after scanning, and final gap width recorded. McNemar's exact test calculated differences between sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, and chi-squared test to compare sensitivity, specificity and accuracy between number of strands (2 vs. 8) and repair gap (≥4 mm).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The 24 MHz transducer had higher sensitivity (81 vs. 59%), lower specificity (67 vs. 70%) and higher overall accuracy (74 vs. 64%), than the 18 MHz transducer. The difference for sensitivity was significant (P = 0.011), but not differences for specificity and overall accuracy (P &gt; 0.05). Pearson's correlation (<i>r</i> = 0.61) demonstrated a moderate-to-strong positive correlation between measured and true gap sizes. Increased number of suture strands (2 vs. 8) did not impair sensitivity, specificity nor accuracy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Ultrasound may tend to overestimate gap width, and a slight risk that some intact repairs, or those with small, clinically insignificant gaps may undergo surgical exploration that may not be indicated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>A 24 MHz transducer is a more sensitive and accurate transducer for assessing flexor tendon repair integrity and measuring small gaps.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36517,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"26 4","pages":"230-235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajum.12359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether a 24 MHz transducer significantly improves sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in evaluating flexor tendon repair integrity compared with an 18 MHz transducer.

Methods

One hundred and twelve cadaveric digits were randomised to an intact repair or simulated ‘failed’ repair, and to a two- or eight-strand repair of a flexor digitorum profundus laceration. A blinded sonologist evaluated specimens in static mode using 18 and 24 MHz transducers. Gaps were remeasured after scanning, and final gap width recorded. McNemar's exact test calculated differences between sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, and chi-squared test to compare sensitivity, specificity and accuracy between number of strands (2 vs. 8) and repair gap (≥4 mm).

Results

The 24 MHz transducer had higher sensitivity (81 vs. 59%), lower specificity (67 vs. 70%) and higher overall accuracy (74 vs. 64%), than the 18 MHz transducer. The difference for sensitivity was significant (P = 0.011), but not differences for specificity and overall accuracy (P > 0.05). Pearson's correlation (r = 0.61) demonstrated a moderate-to-strong positive correlation between measured and true gap sizes. Increased number of suture strands (2 vs. 8) did not impair sensitivity, specificity nor accuracy.

Discussion

Ultrasound may tend to overestimate gap width, and a slight risk that some intact repairs, or those with small, clinically insignificant gaps may undergo surgical exploration that may not be indicated.

Conclusions

A 24 MHz transducer is a more sensitive and accurate transducer for assessing flexor tendon repair integrity and measuring small gaps.

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
24与。18 MHz超声探头对屈肌腱修复完整性的诊断
要确定24 与18 MHz换能器相比,MHz换能器在评估屈肌腱修复完整性方面显著提高了灵敏度、特异性和准确性 MHz转换器。将112具尸体手指随机分为完整修复或模拟“失败”修复,以及指深屈肌撕裂伤的两股或八股修复。一位盲声学家使用18和24对静态模式下的样本进行了评估 MHz换能器。扫描后重新测量间隙,并记录最终间隙宽度。McNemar精确检验计算了敏感性、特异性和准确性之间的差异,卡方检验比较了链数(2对8)和修复间隙(≥4 mm)。24 与18MHz换能器相比,MHz换能器具有更高的灵敏度(81对59%)、更低的特异性(67对70%)和更高的总体准确度(74对64%)。敏感性差异有统计学意义(P = 0.011),但在特异性和总体准确性方面没有差异(P > 0.05)。Pearson相关性(r = 0.61)表明,测量的间隙大小与真实间隙大小之间存在中等到强烈的正相关性。缝合线股数的增加(2股对8股)并未损害敏感性、特异性和准确性。超声可能倾向于高估间隙宽度,以及一些完整的修复或那些具有较小、临床上不显著间隙的修复可能需要进行手术探查的轻微风险,这些手术探查可能不适用。A 24 MHz换能器是一种更灵敏、更准确的换能器,用于评估屈肌腱修复的完整性和测量小间隙。
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
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The impact of ultrasound imaging on patient management – Let's practice the evidence EUS‐guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions—The optimal technique still remains undecided Ultrasound‐assisted and landmark‐based nusinersen delivery in spinal muscular atrophy adults: A retrospective analysis Cutaneous ultrasound in the diagnosis and assessment of inflammatory activity in tinea capitis
×
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