半月板斜坡损伤诊断。

Q3 Medicine Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia Pub Date : 2024-12-07 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1791791
Pedro Baches Jorge, Diego Escudeiro de Oliveira, Guilherme do Amaral Mussatto, Melanie Mayumi Horita, Victor Eduardo Roman Salas, Rafael Baches Jorge
{"title":"半月板斜坡损伤诊断。","authors":"Pedro Baches Jorge, Diego Escudeiro de Oliveira, Guilherme do Amaral Mussatto, Melanie Mayumi Horita, Victor Eduardo Roman Salas, Rafael Baches Jorge","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1791791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b> : This study compared diagnostic methods for meniscal ramp injury (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], arthrotomography, and arthroscopy) to determine the most sensitive and the agreement level between them. <b>Method:</b>  We studied 21 patients, all young athletes with suspected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after trauma for at least 3 months and no evidence or history of other osteoarticular injuries in the knee. The patients underwent MRI and arthrotomography. Following ACL injury confirmation, they underwent arthroscopy for ligament reconstruction and evaluation of the medial meniscus to confirm or exclude a ramp injury. McNemar's agreement test compared the diagnostic methods. We also assessed specificity and sensitivity using arthroscopy as the gold standard with a 95% confidence interval and p < 0.005. <b>Result</b> : The results were consistent with the literature. MRI had 73.3% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity, with 76.2% agreement with the gold standard. Arthrotomography sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 66.7%, respectively, with 90.5% agreement with arthroscopy. <b>Conclusion</b> : In our study, arthrotomography was the most sensitive diagnostic method and had the highest agreement with the gold standard. We recommend its consideration for diagnosing ACL injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":21536,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia","volume":"59 5","pages":"e702-e706"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11624941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meniscal Ramp Injury Diagnosis.\",\"authors\":\"Pedro Baches Jorge, Diego Escudeiro de Oliveira, Guilherme do Amaral Mussatto, Melanie Mayumi Horita, Victor Eduardo Roman Salas, Rafael Baches Jorge\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1791791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective</b> : This study compared diagnostic methods for meniscal ramp injury (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], arthrotomography, and arthroscopy) to determine the most sensitive and the agreement level between them. <b>Method:</b>  We studied 21 patients, all young athletes with suspected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after trauma for at least 3 months and no evidence or history of other osteoarticular injuries in the knee. The patients underwent MRI and arthrotomography. Following ACL injury confirmation, they underwent arthroscopy for ligament reconstruction and evaluation of the medial meniscus to confirm or exclude a ramp injury. McNemar's agreement test compared the diagnostic methods. We also assessed specificity and sensitivity using arthroscopy as the gold standard with a 95% confidence interval and p < 0.005. <b>Result</b> : The results were consistent with the literature. MRI had 73.3% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity, with 76.2% agreement with the gold standard. Arthrotomography sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 66.7%, respectively, with 90.5% agreement with arthroscopy. <b>Conclusion</b> : In our study, arthrotomography was the most sensitive diagnostic method and had the highest agreement with the gold standard. We recommend its consideration for diagnosing ACL injuries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia\",\"volume\":\"59 5\",\"pages\":\"e702-e706\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11624941/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1791791\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1791791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较半月板斜板损伤的诊断方法(磁共振成像(MRI)、关节层析成像(ct)和关节镜检查),确定三者之间的最敏感程度和一致性。方法:我们研究了21例年轻运动员,他们在外伤后怀疑前交叉韧带(ACL)损伤至少3个月,没有其他膝关节骨关节损伤的证据或病史。患者接受MRI和关节断层扫描。在确认前交叉韧带损伤后,他们接受关节镜检查进行韧带重建和内侧半月板评估,以确认或排除斜坡损伤。McNemar的一致性测试比较了诊断方法。我们还以关节镜检查作为金标准,以95%的置信区间和p值评估了特异性和敏感性。结果:结果与文献一致。MRI的敏感性为73.3%,特异性为83.3%,符合金标准76.2%。关节层析成像的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和66.7%,与关节镜检查的一致性为90.5%。结论:在我们的研究中,关节层析成像是最灵敏的诊断方法,与金标准的一致性最高。我们建议将其作为诊断前交叉韧带损伤的参考。
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
Meniscal Ramp Injury Diagnosis.

Objective : This study compared diagnostic methods for meniscal ramp injury (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], arthrotomography, and arthroscopy) to determine the most sensitive and the agreement level between them. Method:  We studied 21 patients, all young athletes with suspected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after trauma for at least 3 months and no evidence or history of other osteoarticular injuries in the knee. The patients underwent MRI and arthrotomography. Following ACL injury confirmation, they underwent arthroscopy for ligament reconstruction and evaluation of the medial meniscus to confirm or exclude a ramp injury. McNemar's agreement test compared the diagnostic methods. We also assessed specificity and sensitivity using arthroscopy as the gold standard with a 95% confidence interval and p < 0.005. Result : The results were consistent with the literature. MRI had 73.3% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity, with 76.2% agreement with the gold standard. Arthrotomography sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 66.7%, respectively, with 90.5% agreement with arthroscopy. Conclusion : In our study, arthrotomography was the most sensitive diagnostic method and had the highest agreement with the gold standard. We recommend its consideration for diagnosing ACL injuries.

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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
142
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Hip Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Retrospective Case Series and Review of the Literature. Long-term Outcomes 18 Years after the Arthroscopic Fixation of a Scapular Articular Fracture: A Case Report. Malunion in a Self-stabilized Fracture of the Odontoid Process Type II with a Chronic Anterior Atlantoaxial Subluxation in a Neurologically Intact Patient: A Case Report. Reichel Syndrome in Children: A Case Report. Minimally-invasive Distal Metatarsal Diaphyseal Osteotomy in the Treatment of Plantar Ulcer in the Diabetic Foot: A Case Report.
×
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