Fuller Corey B, Farnsworth Christine L, Bomar James D, Jeffords Megan E, Murphy Joshua S, Edmonds Eric W, Pennock Andrew T, Wenger Dennis R, Upasani Vidyadhar V
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California.
Division of Pediatric Orthopedics, Rady Children's Hospital, 3020 Children's Way, San Diego, 92123, California.
J Orthop Res. 2018 May;36(5):1536-1542. doi: 10.1002/jor.23785. Epub 2017 Nov 28.
Accurate assessment of femoral version is essential to the surgical treatment of lower extremity deformities, yet the ideal modality and technique to measure femoral version is controversial. This study explored two hypotheses: First, there is no difference in the accuracy of femoral version measurement from 2D CT, 2D MRI, and 3D biplanar radiography reconstructions compared to a 3D model created from CT. Second, there is a difference between the measured version from traditional axial sections of the proximal femur compared to femoral neck oblique sections for CT and MRI. Eight adult cadaver lower extremities underwent CT, MRI, and biplanar radiography. Femoral version measurements from the CT and MRI axial and oblique sections, as well as biplanar radiography reconstructions, were compared to 3D reconstructed models from CT. All five techniques underestimated femoral version compared to the 3D model, but none were statistically significantly different. Regarding the first hypothesis, all five techniques had excellent correlation (r > 0.81, p ≤ 0.01) with the 3D model. Concerning the second hypothesis, the CT and MRI version measurements in femoral neck oblique sections were greater by 5.4° and 1.4°compared to traditional axial sections, respectively. All five techniques across three modalities provided accurate assessment of femoral version, suggesting that the treating physician's choice of modality can be determined per individual patient, not on measurement accuracy.
In choosing a modality to determine femoral version, consider the advantages and disadvantages of each modality for the individual patient, using femoral neck oblique slices for CT and MRI when available. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1536-1542, 2018.
准确评估股骨扭转角对于下肢畸形的手术治疗至关重要,然而测量股骨扭转角的理想方式和技术仍存在争议。本研究探讨了两个假设:第一,与由CT创建的三维模型相比,二维CT、二维MRI和三维双平面X线摄影重建测量股骨扭转角的准确性没有差异。第二,与CT和MRI的股骨颈斜切面相比,股骨近端传统轴位切面测量的扭转角存在差异。对8具成年尸体下肢进行了CT、MRI和双平面X线摄影检查。将CT和MRI轴位及斜位切面以及双平面X线摄影重建测量的股骨扭转角与CT三维重建模型进行比较。与三维模型相比,所有五种技术均低估了股骨扭转角,但均无统计学显著差异。关于第一个假设,所有五种技术与三维模型均具有良好的相关性(r>0.81,p≤0.01)。关于第二个假设,与传统轴位切面相比,CT和MRI股骨颈斜切面测量的扭转角分别大5.4°和1.4°。三种检查方式的所有五种技术均能准确评估股骨扭转角,这表明治疗医生对检查方式的选择可根据个体患者情况而定,而非基于测量准确性。
在选择确定股骨扭转角的检查方式时,应考虑每种方式对个体患者的优缺点,如有条件,CT和MRI可使用股骨颈斜位片。©2017骨科学研究协会。由威利期刊公司出版。《矫形外科学研究》2018年第36卷:1536 - 1542页。