慢性外侧踝关节疼痛患者的踝关节磁共振成像中未充分报告腓肠肌劈裂断裂的情况

IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Journal of Radiology Open Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100591
Katarzyna Bokwa-Dąbrowska , Dan Mocanu , Alex Alexiev , Katarina Nilsson Helander , Pawel Szaro
{"title":"慢性外侧踝关节疼痛患者的踝关节磁共振成像中未充分报告腓肠肌劈裂断裂的情况","authors":"Katarzyna Bokwa-Dąbrowska ,&nbsp;Dan Mocanu ,&nbsp;Alex Alexiev ,&nbsp;Katarina Nilsson Helander ,&nbsp;Pawel Szaro","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Peroneus brevis split rupture poses a diagnostic challenge, often requiring magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), yet splits are missed in initial radiological reports. However, the frequency of reported peroneus brevis split rupture in clinical MRI examinations is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This study aimed to investigate underreporting frequency of peroneus brevis split rupture in patients with lateral ankle pain.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We re-evaluated 143 consecutive MRI examinations of the ankle joint, conducted in 2021 in our region, for patients experiencing ankle pain persisting for more than 8 months. Two musculoskeletal radiologists, with 12 and 8 years of experience respectively, assessed the presence of peroneus brevis split rupture. Patients with recent ankle trauma, fractures, postoperative changes, or MRI artifacts were excluded. The radiologists evaluated each MRI for incomplete or complete peroneus brevis split rupture. The consensus between the raters was used as the reference standard. Additionally, raters reviewed the original clinical radiological reports to determine if the presence of peroneus brevis split rupture was noted. Agreement between raters' assessments, consensus, and initial reports was evaluated using Gwet’s AC1 coefficients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Initial radiological reports indicated 23 cases (52.3 %) of peroneus brevis split rupture, meaning 21 cases (47.7 %) were underreported. The Gwet’s AC1 coefficients showed that the agreement between raters and initial reports was 0.401 (standard error 0.070), 95 % CI (0.261, 0.541), p&lt;.001, while the agreement between raters in the study was 0.716 (standard error 0.082), 95 % CI (0.551, 0.881), p&lt;.001.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Peroneus brevis split rupture is underreported on MRI scans of patients with lateral ankle pain.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047724000467/pdfft?md5=81c4cc1b6e990ec15e6ae90efef8ecf3&pid=1-s2.0-S2352047724000467-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peroneus brevis split rupture is underreported on magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle in patients with chronic lateral ankle pain\",\"authors\":\"Katarzyna Bokwa-Dąbrowska ,&nbsp;Dan Mocanu ,&nbsp;Alex Alexiev ,&nbsp;Katarina Nilsson Helander ,&nbsp;Pawel Szaro\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Peroneus brevis split rupture poses a diagnostic challenge, often requiring magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), yet splits are missed in initial radiological reports. However, the frequency of reported peroneus brevis split rupture in clinical MRI examinations is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This study aimed to investigate underreporting frequency of peroneus brevis split rupture in patients with lateral ankle pain.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We re-evaluated 143 consecutive MRI examinations of the ankle joint, conducted in 2021 in our region, for patients experiencing ankle pain persisting for more than 8 months. Two musculoskeletal radiologists, with 12 and 8 years of experience respectively, assessed the presence of peroneus brevis split rupture. Patients with recent ankle trauma, fractures, postoperative changes, or MRI artifacts were excluded. The radiologists evaluated each MRI for incomplete or complete peroneus brevis split rupture. The consensus between the raters was used as the reference standard. Additionally, raters reviewed the original clinical radiological reports to determine if the presence of peroneus brevis split rupture was noted. Agreement between raters' assessments, consensus, and initial reports was evaluated using Gwet’s AC1 coefficients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Initial radiological reports indicated 23 cases (52.3 %) of peroneus brevis split rupture, meaning 21 cases (47.7 %) were underreported. The Gwet’s AC1 coefficients showed that the agreement between raters and initial reports was 0.401 (standard error 0.070), 95 % CI (0.261, 0.541), p&lt;.001, while the agreement between raters in the study was 0.716 (standard error 0.082), 95 % CI (0.551, 0.881), p&lt;.001.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Peroneus brevis split rupture is underreported on MRI scans of patients with lateral ankle pain.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Radiology Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047724000467/pdfft?md5=81c4cc1b6e990ec15e6ae90efef8ecf3&pid=1-s2.0-S2352047724000467-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Radiology Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047724000467\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047724000467","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

摘要

导言腓总肌劈裂断裂是一项诊断难题,通常需要进行核磁共振成像(MRI)检查,但在最初的放射学报告中会漏报腓总肌劈裂断裂。本研究旨在调查外侧踝关节疼痛患者腓总肌劈裂断裂的漏报频率。方法我们重新评估了本地区 2021 年对踝关节疼痛持续 8 个月以上的患者进行的 143 次连续的踝关节 MRI 检查。两名分别拥有 12 年和 8 年经验的肌肉骨骼放射科医生评估了是否存在腓骨肌劈裂断裂。排除了近期有踝关节外伤、骨折、术后变化或核磁共振成像伪影的患者。放射科医生对每张核磁共振图像进行评估,以确定是否存在不完全或完全的腓骨肌腱分裂断裂。评定者之间的共识被用作参考标准。此外,评定者还查看了原始临床放射学报告,以确定是否存在腓总肌劈裂断裂。结果最初的放射学报告显示有 23 例(52.3%)腓骨后肌劈裂断裂,这意味着有 21 例(47.7%)报告不足。Gwet's AC1 系数显示,评分者与初始报告的一致性为 0.401(标准误差 0.070),95 % CI (0.261, 0.541),p<.001,而研究中评分者之间的一致性为 0.716(标准误差 0.082),95 % CI (0.551, 0.881),p<.001.结论腓总肌劈裂断裂在外侧踝关节疼痛患者的 MRI 扫描中报告不足。
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
Peroneus brevis split rupture is underreported on magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle in patients with chronic lateral ankle pain

Introduction

Peroneus brevis split rupture poses a diagnostic challenge, often requiring magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), yet splits are missed in initial radiological reports. However, the frequency of reported peroneus brevis split rupture in clinical MRI examinations is unknown.

Aim

This study aimed to investigate underreporting frequency of peroneus brevis split rupture in patients with lateral ankle pain.

Methods

We re-evaluated 143 consecutive MRI examinations of the ankle joint, conducted in 2021 in our region, for patients experiencing ankle pain persisting for more than 8 months. Two musculoskeletal radiologists, with 12 and 8 years of experience respectively, assessed the presence of peroneus brevis split rupture. Patients with recent ankle trauma, fractures, postoperative changes, or MRI artifacts were excluded. The radiologists evaluated each MRI for incomplete or complete peroneus brevis split rupture. The consensus between the raters was used as the reference standard. Additionally, raters reviewed the original clinical radiological reports to determine if the presence of peroneus brevis split rupture was noted. Agreement between raters' assessments, consensus, and initial reports was evaluated using Gwet’s AC1 coefficients.

Results

Initial radiological reports indicated 23 cases (52.3 %) of peroneus brevis split rupture, meaning 21 cases (47.7 %) were underreported. The Gwet’s AC1 coefficients showed that the agreement between raters and initial reports was 0.401 (standard error 0.070), 95 % CI (0.261, 0.541), p<.001, while the agreement between raters in the study was 0.716 (standard error 0.082), 95 % CI (0.551, 0.881), p<.001.

Conclusion

Peroneus brevis split rupture is underreported on MRI scans of patients with lateral ankle pain.

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
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
期刊最新文献
Deep learning model for diagnosis of thyroid nodules with size less than 1 cm: A multicenter, retrospective study MRI-based radiomics machine learning model to differentiate non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma from benign renal tumors Post-deployment performance of a deep learning algorithm for normal and abnormal chest X-ray classification: A study at visa screening centers in the United Arab Emirates Study on the classification of benign and malignant breast lesions using a multi-sequence breast MRI fusion radiomics and deep learning model True cost estimation of common imaging procedures for cost-effectiveness analysis - insights from a Singapore hospital emergency department
×
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