Zügner Roland, Tranberg Roy, Lisovskaja Vera, Shareghi Bita, Kärrholm Johan
Department of Orthopedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University, SE 413 45, Göteborg, Sweden.
Department of Economics, Institute of Communication in Statistics, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
J Orthop Res. 2017 Jul;35(7):1515-1522. doi: 10.1002/jor.23415. Epub 2016 Sep 26.
We simultaneously examined 14 patients with OTS and dynamic radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to evaluate the accuracy of both skin- and a cluster-marker models. The mean differences between the OTS and RSA system in hip flexion, abduction, and rotation varied up to 9.5° for the skin-marker and up to 11.3° for the cluster-marker models, respectively. Both models tended to underestimate the amount of flexion and abduction, but a significant systematic difference between the marker and RSA evaluations could only be established for recordings of hip abduction using cluster markers (p = 0.04). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.7 or higher during flexion for both models and during abduction using skin markers, but decreased to 0.5-0.6 when abduction motion was studied with cluster markers. During active hip rotation, the two marker models tended to deviate from the RSA recordings in different ways with poor correlations at the end of the motion (ICC ≤0.4). During active hip motions soft tissue displacements occasionally induced considerable differences when compared to skeletal motions. The best correlation between RSA recordings and the skin- and cluster-marker model was found for studies of hip flexion and abduction with the skin-marker model. Studies of hip abduction with use of cluster markers were associated with a constant underestimation of the motion. Recordings of skeletal motions with use of skin or cluster markers during hip rotation were associated with high mean errors amounting up to about 10° at certain positions. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:1515-1522, 2017.
我们同时对14例骨关节炎患者进行了动态放射立体测量分析(RSA),以评估皮肤标记模型和簇状标记模型的准确性。对于皮肤标记模型,骨关节炎(OTS)系统与RSA系统在髋关节屈曲、外展和旋转方面的平均差异分别高达9.5°;对于簇状标记模型,该差异分别高达11.3°。两种模型均倾向于低估屈曲和外展的幅度,但仅在使用簇状标记记录髋关节外展时,标记评估与RSA评估之间存在显著的系统差异(p = 0.04)。两种模型在屈曲过程中以及使用皮肤标记进行外展时,组内相关系数(ICC)均为0.7或更高,但在使用簇状标记研究外展运动时,ICC降至0.5 - 0.6。在主动髋关节旋转过程中,两种标记模型倾向于以不同方式偏离RSA记录,在运动结束时相关性较差(ICC≤0.4)。在主动髋关节运动过程中,与骨骼运动相比,软组织位移偶尔会引起相当大的差异。在研究髋关节屈曲和外展时,RSA记录与皮肤标记模型之间的相关性最佳。使用簇状标记研究髋关节外展与运动的持续低估有关。在髋关节旋转过程中,使用皮肤或簇状标记记录骨骼运动在某些位置的平均误差高达约10°。© 2016骨科学研究协会。由Wiley Periodicals, Inc.出版。《矫形外科学研究》35:1515 - 1522, 2017。