Yousefi Mohammad Reza, Yazdanprast Mojgan, Neshati Hashem, Abdi Reza, Hasanian Mohammad, Alamdaran Seyed Ali
Department of radiology, faculty medicine, Mashhad University of medical science, Iran.
Department of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Iran.
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2024;12(3):191-197. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2023.69347.3264.
The ultrasound examination of the hip joint is performed in the static (Graf) technique in the lateral recumbent position and in the dynamic technique in the supine position. This study compares the two static and dynamic techniques and assesses the role of the patient's position in the examination of DDH.
This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020-2021 at Akbar Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran. 126 patients suspected of having DDH (199 hip) infants were enrolled in the study. All ultrasound examinations were performed with two static and dynamic techniques by a pediatric radiologist.
In the static and dynamic ultrasound examinations, the average alpha angle was 51.57 ± 6.41 degrees, and 53.41 ± 6.94 degrees, respectively. These changes were not statistically significant (P = 0.312). The relationship and agreement between instability with dynamic technique and instability with static technique (IIC unstable, D, III, and IV) were investigated. Significant agreement (Kappa=0.77 (95% CI: 0.66-0.87) with excellent clinical significance was obtained between the two ultrasound examination method. Also, in terms of DDH types in the static method with instability types in the dynamic method, a substantial agreement was found between the two examination methods (Kappa =0.67; (95% CI: 0.59-0.75) with good clinical significance.
In the ultrasound examination of DDH with static and dynamic techniques, the change in the alpha angle was not statistically significant. Therefore, the hand of the radiologist is open in measuring alpha angles and there is no need to emphasize a specific position. The type of DDH in the static technique completely corresponded to the type of stability or instability in the dynamic technique.
髋关节超声检查采用侧卧位的静态(格拉夫)技术和仰卧位的动态技术进行。本研究比较了两种静态和动态技术,并评估了患者体位在发育性髋关节发育不良(DDH)检查中的作用。
这项横断面研究于2020年至2021年在伊朗马什哈德医科大学阿克巴医院进行。126例疑似患有DDH(199个髋关节)的婴儿纳入研究。所有超声检查均由一名儿科放射科医生采用两种静态和动态技术进行。
在静态和动态超声检查中,平均α角分别为51.57±6.41度和53.41±6.94度。这些变化无统计学意义(P = 0.312)。研究了动态技术不稳定与静态技术不稳定(II C型不稳定、D型、III型和IV型)之间的关系和一致性。两种超声检查方法之间获得了具有极好临床意义的显著一致性(Kappa = 0.77(95%CI:0.66 - 0.87))。此外,就静态方法中的DDH类型与动态方法中的不稳定类型而言,两种检查方法之间发现了具有良好临床意义的实质性一致性(Kappa = 0.67;(95%CI:0.59 - 0.75))。
在采用静态和动态技术的DDH超声检查中,α角的变化无统计学意义。因此,放射科医生在测量α角时较为灵活,无需强调特定体位。静态技术中的DDH类型与动态技术中的稳定或不稳定类型完全对应。