FP2.7 Femoral Version Measurements Vary Significantly Between Commonly Used Methods – Implications for diagnosis and management
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Accurate measurement of femoral version is essential for diagnosing rotational deformities, determining the need for surgical intervention, or establishing the extent of correction required. However, in the literature numerous measurement techniques have been described. This study aims to 1) Evaluate the differences among different 2- and 3- dimensional (2D/3D) techniques for measuring femoral version; 2) Investigate intra- and inter-observer reliability of measurements amongst orthopaedic surgeons and radiologists; and 3) Assess effect of version on differences between measurement techniques. Methods: This is a retrospective, single-, academic- center, study. One-hundred patients/femora that underwent hip preservation surgery were analyzed (measured and segmented). Pelvic CT scans, which included the distal femur, were utilized to measure femoral version, employing different sets of landmarks as per different definitions Four well-described and commonly used measurements were determined. Those were from femoral version measurements from axial slices (2D) of the hip and knee (Murphy and Reikeras methods), or from 3D reconstructions of segmented femurs (Sugano and Lee methods) were performed. Four assessors performed the axial measurements (1 hip preservation fellow; 2 young adult hip staff surgeon and 1 MSK radiologist). Measurements were performed relative to the posterior- and inter-epicondylar- axes. Discrepancies between the different techniques and the inter-observer correlations were determined. Results: The mean anteversion according to the 4 methods varied between 8.9°±11.6 (Reikeras; lowest) to 16.3°±12.2 (Murphy; highest). Referencing off the epicondylar axis reduced version measurements by 5.2°±2.6, compared to the posterior condylar axis. Significant inter-observer correlations were observed, but the agreement was higher for Murphy’s method (ICC:0.80; 95%CI: 0.72-0.86), compared to Reikeras (ICC:0.74; 95%CI: 0.63-0.82). While the Sugano and Lee methods (3D methods) showed strong correlations with both Murphy (ρ=0.937 and ρ=0.941, respectively) and Reikeras (ρ=0.936 and ρ=0.922, respectively), they demonstrated smaller discrepancies in absolute values with Reikeras (7.1°±3.6 and -3.0°±4.9 respectively) than with Murphy (9.3°±4.0 and 19.4°±4.1 respectively). Femoral version correlated positively with difference in measurements between Murphy/Reikeras (ρ=0.291), Lee/Murphy (ρ=0.402), Sugano/Lee (ρ=0.616), and negatively between Sugano/Murphy (ρ=-0.246) and Sugano/Rekeiras (ρ=-0.423). Discussion: Amongst the four observers, Murphy’s method demonstrated greatest agreement but illustrated greatest version compared to rest, which needs to be considered as neglecting these differences can lead to errors in surgical decision making and planning degree of correction. As higher femoral version correlates with increased disparities between certain measurement techniques, it is important to consider these differences in patients with instability presenting with persistent femoral anteversion, when considering derotational osteotomy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».