Hariri Sanaz, Sochacki Kyle R, Harris Alex S, Safran Marc R
Stanford University, 450 Broadway St., M/C 6342, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA.
VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Bone and Joint Rehabilitation Center, 795 Willow Road (MC152), Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA.
J Exp Orthop. 2020 Feb 1;7(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s40634-020-0221-5.
To determine and compare the accuracy and interobserver reliability of the different methods for localizing acetabular labral, acetabular chondral, and femoral head chondral lesions with hip arthroscopy .
Three cadaver hips were placed in the supine position. Three labral, three femoral chondral, and six acetabular chondral lesions were made in each cadaver using electrocautery. Six surgeons classified the lesions according to different classification systems (clock-face, geographic, Method-G) using hip arthroscopy and standardized portals. Identification of each lesion was performed after conclusion of the study through open dissection and surgical hip dislocation to be used as the "gold-standard." Accuracy was calculated as the number of correct answers divided by total number of responses for a given system. The interobserver reliability was calculated using the kappa coefficient. The different classification methods were compared. All P values were reported with significance set at P < 0.05.
The clock-face method had an accuracy of 74% (95% CI, 60%-85%) and interobserver reliability of 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.26) while the geographic method had an accuracy of 50% (95% CI, 36%-64%) and interobserver reliability of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.05-0.31) for acetabular labral lesion identification (P > 0.05). The acetabular chondral lesion identification accuracy was 56% (95% CI, 46%-65%) for Method G, 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%) for Method G-simp, and 63% (95% CI, 53%-72%) for the geographic system (P > 0.05) with an interobserver reliability of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.27-0.35), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.28-0.40), and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.34-0.45), respectively (P > 0.05). Femoral chondral lesion identification accuracy was 74% (95% CI, 60%-85%) for Method G, 43% (95% CI, 29%-57%) for the geographic method, and 59% (95% CI, 45%-72%) for the geographic-simp system with interobserver reliability of 0.37 (95% CI, 0.27-0.47), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.28-0.40), and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29-0.51), respectively (P > 0.05). Method G was significantly more accurate than the geographic system (P = 0.001).
There was poor to fair accuracy and interobserver reliability of the reporting systems for localization of labral, acetabular chondral, and femoral chondral lesions encountered during hip arthroscopy. The study suggests there is a need for a new method that is easy to use, reliable, reproducible and accurate.
确定并比较髋关节镜检查时不同方法定位髋臼盂唇、髋臼软骨和股骨头软骨损伤的准确性及观察者间的可靠性。
将三具尸体髋关节置于仰卧位。每具尸体用电灼法制造三个盂唇损伤、三个股骨头软骨损伤和六个髋臼软骨损伤。六名外科医生使用髋关节镜和标准化入路,根据不同分类系统(钟面法、区域法、G法)对损伤进行分类。研究结束后,通过开放解剖和手术性髋关节脱位确定每个损伤,将其作为“金标准”。准确性计算为给定系统中正确答案数量除以总回答数量。观察者间的可靠性使用kappa系数计算。比较不同分类方法。所有P值报告时显著性设定为P < 0.05。
对于髋臼盂唇损伤识别,钟面法的准确性为74%(95%CI,60%-85%),观察者间可靠性为0.19(95%CI,0.11-0.26);区域法的准确性为50%(95%CI,36%-64%),观察者间可靠性为0.21(95%CI,0.05-0.31)(P > 0.05)。对于髋臼软骨损伤识别,G法的准确性为56%(95%CI,46%-65%),G-simp法为66%(95%CI,56%-75%),区域系统为63%(95%CI,53%-72%)(P > 0.05),观察者间可靠性分别为0.31(95%CI,0.27-0.35)、0.34(95%CI,0.28-0.40)和0.40(95%CI,0.34-0.45)(P > 0.05)。对于股骨头软骨损伤识别,G法的准确性为74%(95%CI,60%-85%),区域法为43%(95%CI,29%-57%),区域-simp系统为59%(95%CI,45%-