Hashimoto Etaro, Masumoto Shoichi, Sato Mikiya, Maeno Tetsuhiro
Department of Primary Care and Medical Education, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, JPN.
Department of Family Medicine, General Practice, and Community Health, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, JPN.
Cureus. 2025 Aug 25;17(8):e90975. doi: 10.7759/cureus.90975. eCollection 2025 Aug.
Introduction Delayed diagnosis of hip fracture (HF), one of the most common fractures encountered in clinical practice, is associated with serious complications or adverse outcomes. However, these fractures are frequently missed on radiography. Auscultatory percussion, a simple screening method that compares percussion sounds between lower limbs using a stethoscope, has limitations owing to its subjective evaluation, which can lead to unstable diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, this study aimed to verify whether objective frequency analysis of percussion sounds could overcome this issue to achieve high-accuracy diagnosis. We further compared the diagnostic performance of manual percussion versus percussion with a tendon hammer. Materials and methods This case-control study enrolled 40 patients with HFs (fracture group) and 20 hospitalized patients without fractures (control group). All patients underwent percussion of the pubic symphysis using manual percussion and a tendon hammer, and sounds were recorded from both patellae. The absolute value of the sound pressure difference between the sides was calculated across 512 frequency bands (0-24,000 Hz). Diagnostic performance was evaluated using group comparisons (Mann-Whitney U test), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with bootstrap internal validation, decision curve analysis (DCA), and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Manual percussion demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance at the 2718.75-Hz band, with an optimism-corrected area under the curve (AUC) of 0.923 (95% confidence interval: 0.845-0.979). At a cutoff value of 1.28 dB, the sensitivity and specificity were 97.5% and 69.8%, respectively, yielding an extremely low negative likelihood ratio of 0.04. Hammer percussion also showed good performance in the 421.88-Hz band (AUC: 0.861), although the difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods was not statistically significant. DCA confirmed the clinical utility of both methods. In multivariate analysis, the sound pressure difference for both methods was a significant independent predictor of fracture. Furthermore, exploratory subgroup analysis suggested the diagnostic performance of manual percussion was stable across key patient subgroups. Conclusion These results indicate that objective frequency-domain analysis of percussion sounds, particularly with manual percussion, represents a simple and effective screening tool for ruling out HFs, given its high sensitivity and excellent negative likelihood ratio. This study revealed new scientific insight that the diagnostically effective frequency band depends on the physical properties of percussion. These findings overcome the challenges of conventional subjective diagnostic methods and could contribute to the future development of accessible, objective, and non-invasive fracture diagnosis technologies.
引言
髋部骨折(HF)是临床实践中最常见的骨折之一,其诊断延迟与严重并发症或不良后果相关。然而,这些骨折在X线检查中经常被漏诊。听诊叩诊是一种简单的筛查方法,使用听诊器比较双下肢的叩诊音,但由于其主观评估存在局限性,可能导致诊断准确性不稳定。因此,本研究旨在验证叩诊音的客观频率分析是否可以克服这一问题以实现高精度诊断。我们还比较了手动叩诊与用肌腱锤叩诊的诊断性能。
材料与方法
本病例对照研究纳入了40例髋部骨折患者(骨折组)和20例无骨折的住院患者(对照组)。所有患者均接受了耻骨联合的手动叩诊和用肌腱锤叩诊,并记录了两侧髌骨的声音。计算了512个频带(0 - 24,000 Hz)两侧声压差的绝对值。使用组间比较(曼-惠特尼U检验)、带有自举内部验证的受试者工作特征(ROC)分析、决策曲线分析(DCA)和多变量逻辑回归分析来评估诊断性能。
结果
手动叩诊在2718.75 Hz频带表现出最高的诊断性能,乐观校正曲线下面积(AUC)为0.923(95%置信区间:0.845 - 0.979)。在截断值为1.28 dB时,敏感性和特异性分别为97.5%和69.8%,阴性似然比极低,为0.04。肌腱锤叩诊在421.88 Hz频带也表现出良好的性能(AUC:0.861),尽管两种方法的诊断性能差异无统计学意义。DCA证实了两种方法的临床实用性。在多变量分析中,两种方法的声压差都是骨折的显著独立预测因素。此外,探索性亚组分析表明手动叩诊在关键患者亚组中的诊断性能稳定。
结论
这些结果表明,叩诊音的客观频域分析,特别是手动叩诊,鉴于其高敏感性和出色的阴性似然比,是一种简单有效的排除髋部骨折的筛查工具。本研究揭示了新的科学见解,即诊断有效的频带取决于叩诊的物理特性。这些发现克服了传统主观诊断方法的挑战,并可能有助于未来可及、客观和无创骨折诊断技术的发展。