有无超声引导的临床工具测量腿长不均匀的可靠性

IF 0.8 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Ultrasound Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.1177/1742271x231195741
Richard Cahanin, Andre Fallavollita, Troy Burley, Samuel McQuiston
{"title":"有无超声引导的临床工具测量腿长不均匀的可靠性","authors":"Richard Cahanin, Andre Fallavollita, Troy Burley, Samuel McQuiston","doi":"10.1177/1742271x231195741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To determine and compare the reliability and efficiency of various methods of leg-length measurement. Methods: A total of 88 leg-lengths were measured among 50 subjects (79%–84% female, mean age = 30–33 years). Leg-lengths were measured in both supine and standing positions using multiple devices, including a tape measure, a LASER distance meter, and diagnostic ultrasound. Results: All methods of leg-length measurement using the middle of the femoral head as a reference point, identified via ultrasound, demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95–1.00). Measurements performed in supine, using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, with a tape measure, demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86–0.95, standard error of the measurement = 16.1–19.9 cm). Standing measurements using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, using a tape measure, demonstrated fair-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.71–0.95). Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided landmark identification appear to be a more reliable method compared to palpation of the anterior superior iliac spine for measurement of leg-length using clinical tools. When coupled with ultrasound guidance, a hand-held LASER distance meter/pitch locator apparatus or a retractable tape measure appears to be acceptable alternatives to a fixed LASER distance meter on a linear actuator for leg-length measurement.","PeriodicalId":23440,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reliability of clinical tools with and without ultrasound guidance to measure leg-length inequality\",\"authors\":\"Richard Cahanin, Andre Fallavollita, Troy Burley, Samuel McQuiston\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1742271x231195741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To determine and compare the reliability and efficiency of various methods of leg-length measurement. Methods: A total of 88 leg-lengths were measured among 50 subjects (79%–84% female, mean age = 30–33 years). Leg-lengths were measured in both supine and standing positions using multiple devices, including a tape measure, a LASER distance meter, and diagnostic ultrasound. Results: All methods of leg-length measurement using the middle of the femoral head as a reference point, identified via ultrasound, demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95–1.00). Measurements performed in supine, using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, with a tape measure, demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86–0.95, standard error of the measurement = 16.1–19.9 cm). Standing measurements using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, using a tape measure, demonstrated fair-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.71–0.95). Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided landmark identification appear to be a more reliable method compared to palpation of the anterior superior iliac spine for measurement of leg-length using clinical tools. When coupled with ultrasound guidance, a hand-held LASER distance meter/pitch locator apparatus or a retractable tape measure appears to be acceptable alternatives to a fixed LASER distance meter on a linear actuator for leg-length measurement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271x231195741\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271x231195741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定和比较各种腿长测量方法的可靠性和效率。方法:50例受试者(女性79% ~ 84%,平均年龄30 ~ 33岁)共测量88个腿长。使用多种设备测量仰卧位和站立位的腿长,包括卷尺、激光测距仪和诊断超声。结果:所有以股骨头中部为参考点的腿长测量方法均通过超声识别,具有良好的可靠性(类内相关系数= 0.95-1.00)。以髂前上棘为参考点,使用卷尺进行仰卧位测量,显示出良好到极好的可靠性(类内相关系数= 0.86-0.95,测量标准误差= 16.1-19.9 cm)。以髂前上棘为参考点,使用卷尺进行站立测量,显示出相当好的可靠性(类内相关系数= 0.71-0.95)。结论:与触诊髂前上棘相比,超声引导下的地标识别似乎是一种更可靠的方法,用于临床工具测量腿长。当与超声引导相结合时,手持式激光测距仪/间距定位仪或可伸缩卷尺似乎是可接受的替代固定激光测距仪在线性执行器上进行腿长测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The reliability of clinical tools with and without ultrasound guidance to measure leg-length inequality
Purpose: To determine and compare the reliability and efficiency of various methods of leg-length measurement. Methods: A total of 88 leg-lengths were measured among 50 subjects (79%–84% female, mean age = 30–33 years). Leg-lengths were measured in both supine and standing positions using multiple devices, including a tape measure, a LASER distance meter, and diagnostic ultrasound. Results: All methods of leg-length measurement using the middle of the femoral head as a reference point, identified via ultrasound, demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95–1.00). Measurements performed in supine, using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, with a tape measure, demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86–0.95, standard error of the measurement = 16.1–19.9 cm). Standing measurements using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, using a tape measure, demonstrated fair-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.71–0.95). Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided landmark identification appear to be a more reliable method compared to palpation of the anterior superior iliac spine for measurement of leg-length using clinical tools. When coupled with ultrasound guidance, a hand-held LASER distance meter/pitch locator apparatus or a retractable tape measure appears to be acceptable alternatives to a fixed LASER distance meter on a linear actuator for leg-length measurement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound
Ultrasound RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Ultrasound is the official journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), a multidisciplinary, charitable society comprising radiologists, obstetricians, sonographers, physicists and veterinarians amongst others.
期刊最新文献
Two case reports of triple ectopic: Literature review of incidence, risk factors and management of recurrent ectopic pregnancy. Beyond the hernia in groin ultrasound. Investigation of artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support system's performance in reducing the fine needle aspiration rate of thyroid nodules: A pilot study. Advanced multimodal ultrasound for pre-operative assessment of skin tumours: A case series. Diagnostic accuracy of strain cervical elastography as a predictor for preterm delivery: A single tertiary care centre 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