Janssen Stein J, Hermanussen Hugo H, Guitton Thierry G, van den Bekerom Michel P J, van Deurzen Derek F P, Ring David
Hand Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 May;474(5):1257-65. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4706-6. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
For greater tuberosity fractures, 5-mm displacement is a commonly used threshold for recommending surgery; however, it is unclear if displacement can be assessed with this degree of precision and reliability using plain radiographs. It also is unclear if CT images provide additional information that might change decision making.
QUESTION/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Does interobserver agreement for assessment of the amount and direction of fracture-fragment displacement vary based on imaging modality (radiographs only; 2-dimensional [2-D] CT images and radiographs; and 3-dimensional [3-D] and 2-D CT images and radiographs)? (2) Does the likelihood of recommending surgery vary based on imaging modality? (3) Does the level of confidence regarding the decision for treatment vary based on imaging modality?
We invited 791 orthopaedic surgeons to complete a survey on greater tuberosity fractures. One hundred eighty (23%) responded and were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis in one of the three imaging modality groups and evaluated the same set of 22 fractures. We described age, sex, mechanism of injury, days between injury and imaging, and that patients had no comorbidities or signs of neurovascular damage for every case. One hundred sixty-four of the 180 respondents completed the study and there was an imbalance in noncompletion between the three groups (two of 67 [3.0%] in the radiograph only group; nine of 57 [16%] in the 2-D CT and radiograph group; and five of 56 [8.9%] in the 3-D CT, 2-D CT, and radiograph group; p = 0.043 by Fisher's exact test). Participants assessed amount (in millimeters) and direction (posterosuperior/posteroinferior/anterosuperior/anteroinferior/no displacement) of displacement; recommended treatment (surgical or nonoperative); and indicated their level of confidence regarding the recommended treatment on a scale from 0 to 10 for every case. Overall recommendation for treatment was expressed as a surgery score per surgeon by dividing the amount of cases they would operate on by the total number of cases (n = 22) and presented as a percentage. Confidence regarding the decision for treatment was calculated by averaging the confidence score per surgeon, ranging from 0 to 10. We compared interobserver agreement using kappa for categorical variables and intraclass correlation (ICC) for continuous variables. We used multivariable linear regression to assess difference in surgery score and confidence level between imaging groups, controlling for surgeon characteristics.
Interobserver agreement for assessment of amount (radiographs: ICC, 0.55, 2-D CT + radiographs ICC, 0.53, 3-D CT + 2-D CT + radiographs ICC, 0.57; p values on all comparisons >0.7) and direction (radiographs: kappa, 0.30, 2-D CT + radiographs kappa, 0.43, 3-D CT + 2-D CT + radiographs kappa, 0.40; p values for all comparisons >0.096) of displacement did not vary by imaging modality. 2-D CT and radiographs (β regression coefficient [β], 3.1; p = 0.253) and 3-D CT, 2-D CT and radiographs (β, 1.6; p = 0.561) did not result in a difference in recommendation for surgery compared with radiographs alone. 2-D CT and radiographs (β, 0.40; p = 0.021) and 3-D CT, 2-D CT and radiographs (β, 0.44; p = 0.011) were associated with slightly higher levels of confidence compared with radiographs alone.
Imaging modality, with the numbers evaluated, does not influence interobserver agreement of greater tuberosity fracture assessment, nor did it influence the recommendation for surgical treatment. However, surgeons did feel slightly more confident about their treatment recommendation when assessing CT images with radiographs compared with radiographs alone. Our results therefore suggest no additional value of CT scans for assessment of greater tuberosity fractures when displacement seems to be minimal on plain radiographs. CT scans could be helpful in borderline cases, or in case other fractures can be expected (eg, an occult surgical neck fracture).
Level III, diagnostic study.
对于大结节骨折,5毫米的移位是推荐手术常用的阈值;然而,尚不清楚使用普通X线片能否以这种精度和可靠性评估移位情况。也不清楚CT图像是否能提供可能改变决策的额外信息。
问题/目的:我们提出以下问题:(1)基于成像方式(仅X线片;二维[2-D]CT图像和X线片;三维[3-D]及2-D CT图像和X线片),观察者间对骨折块移位量和方向评估的一致性是否存在差异?(2)基于成像方式,推荐手术的可能性是否存在差异?(3)基于成像方式,治疗决策的信心水平是否存在差异?
我们邀请791名骨科医生完成一项关于大结节骨折的调查。180名(23%)医生回复并按1:1:1比例随机分配到三个成像方式组之一,评估同一组22例骨折。我们描述了每个病例的年龄、性别、损伤机制、受伤与成像之间的天数,以及患者无合并症或神经血管损伤迹象。180名受访者中有164名完成了研究,三组之间的未完成情况存在不平衡(仅X线片组67名中的2名[3.0%];2-D CT和X线片组57名中的9名[16%];3-D CT、2-D CT和X线片组56名中的5名[8.9%];Fisher精确检验p = 0.043)。参与者评估移位量(以毫米为单位)和方向(后上/后下/前上/前下/无移位);推荐治疗方案(手术或非手术);并针对每个病例在0至10的量表上表明他们对推荐治疗的信心水平。每位外科医生的总体治疗推荐通过将他们会进行手术的病例数除以病例总数(n = 22)得出手术得分,并以百分比表示。治疗决策的信心通过平均每位外科医生的信心得分来计算,范围为0至10。我们使用kappa检验比较分类变量的观察者间一致性,使用组内相关系数(ICC)比较连续变量。我们使用多变量线性回归评估成像组之间手术得分和信心水平的差异,并控制外科医生的特征。
观察者间对移位量评估的一致性(X线片:ICC,0.55;2-D CT + X线片:ICC = 0.53;3-D CT + 2-D CT + X线片:ICC = 0.57;所有比较的p值>0.7)和方向(X线片:kappa = 0.30;2-D CT + X线片:kappa = 0.43;3-D CT + 2-D CT + X线片:kappa = 0.40;所有比较的p值>0.096)不因成像方式而有所不同。与仅使用X线片相比,2-D CT和X线片(β回归系数[β],3.1;p = 0.253)以及3-D CT、2-D CT和X线片(β,1.6;p = 0.561)在手术推荐方面没有差异。与仅使用X线片相比,2-D CT和X线片(β,0.40;p = 0.021)以及3-D CT、2-D CT和X线片(β,0.44;p = 0.011)的信心水平略高。
在所评估的数量范围内,成像方式不影响观察者间对大结节骨折评估的一致性,也不影响手术治疗的推荐。然而,与仅使用X线片相比,外科医生在结合X线片评估CT图像时,对其治疗推荐的信心确实略高。因此我们认为当普通X线片上移位似乎最小时,CT扫描对评估大结节骨折没有额外价值。CT扫描在临界病例或预期存在其他骨折(如隐匿性外科颈骨折)的情况下可能会有帮助。
III级,诊断性研究。