Which Radiographic Measurements Best Predict Contralateral Slip in Patients Who Undergo Pinning for Unilateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Managing the contralateral hip in patients with unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) involves balancing the risks of prophylactic pinning against the potential for a subsequent slip. This study aimed to evaluate the role of radiographic methods in predicting contralateral slips in patients with unilateral SCFE. Methods: We assessed frog-leg radiographs from 312 patients with unilateral SCFE, measuring the Billings, Southwick, Posterior Sloping Angle (PSA), and tilt angles. Seventy patients (22%) experienced contralateral slips, with a median follow-up of 42 months (range, 18-70 months). Radiographs were evaluated independently by four raters at two separate time points. The radiographic parameters were compared between patients who developed contralateral slips and those who did not, and the diagnostic utility of each radiographic measure was assessed through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, with area under the ROC curve (AUC) values calculated for each method. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were also determined using literature-based cutoffs for the angles (tilt angle >10°, Billings >12°, PSA >14°, Southwick >12°). Results: ROC analysis showed discriminatory ability for all measures, with AUCs ranging from 0.61 to 0.66. The Tilt angle had the highest overall accuracy (77%; 95% CI = 72-82%) and specificity (93%) but the lowest sensitivity (21%). The Billings angle was the most sensitive (83%; 95% CI = 72-92%). All methods displayed good negative predictive values (NPV) between 80 and 90% and excellent interrater (ICC = 0.92-0.99) and intrarater (ICC = 0.84-0.98) reliability. Conclusions: Each radiographic method provides reliable predictive information regarding the risk of contralateral slip in unilateral SCFE. Surgeons who aim to minimize the risk of missing a contralateral slip should consider using the Billings angle with a cutoff of 12°, accepting that this may lead to some unnecessary pinning of hips that would not have slipped. Conversely, those who prioritize avoiding unnecessary surgery may prefer the tilt angle with a cutoff of 10°, understanding that this approach could result in missing some hips that will later develop a slip. These findings provide valuable guidance for decision-making regarding managing the contralateral hip in patients with unilateral SCFE. Key Concepts: (1) Radiographic Predictive Measurements for Contralateral SCFE: The study evaluates the diagnostic utility of various radiographic angles (Epiphyseal Tilt, Billing's, Posterior Sloping, and Southwick angle) in predicting contralateral slips in unilateral SCFE cases, highlighting their sensitivity, specificity, and clinical implications.(2) Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of radiographic measurements: The study demonstrates excellent interrater and intrarater reliability across all radiographic measurements, emphasizing the consistency and reproducibility of these methods for clinical use.(3) Limitations of Current Predictive Radiographic Measurements: The study highlights the limitations of existing radiographic methods in achieving perfect predictive accuracy, advocating for future research to explore advanced imaging techniques like 3D MRI or CT to improve the identification of contralateral slip risk.(4) Trade-Off Between Sensitivity and Specificity: The findings emphasize the critical trade-off between minimizing missed contralateral slips versus avoiding unnecessary prophylactic pinning.(5) Clinical Decision-Making Guidance: By providing detailed accuracy and predictive values for each measurement, the study offers practical guidance for orthopaedic surgeon. Surgeons who aim to minimize the risk of missing a contralateral slip should consider using the Billings angle with a cutoff of 12°, accepting that this may lead to some unnecessary pinning of hips that would not have slipped. Conversely, those who prioritize avoiding unnecessary surgery may prefer the tilt angle with a cutoff of 10°, understanding that this approach could result in missing some hips that will later develop a slip. Level of Evidence: Level III retrospective cohort study.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».