Kelsey A. Clark, Savannah Nielsen, Taylor Heywood, Camille Nguyen, Ulrike H. Mitchell
{"title":"双能 X 射线吸收测定法不能证实克雷格试验的有效性","authors":"Kelsey A. Clark, Savannah Nielsen, Taylor Heywood, Camille Nguyen, Ulrike H. Mitchell","doi":"10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The Craig's test is a clinical assessment used to quantify femoral version. The validity of the Craig's test has been called into question due to instances where the test exhibits relatively poor correlation with three-dimensional imaging. Our study purpose was to use dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to indirectly assess the validity of the Craig's test. Twenty-three volunteers (n = 46; each hip analyzed separately) received two hip DXA scans using two different methods of positioning. During the first scan, a standard-sized wedge, the conventional tool of hip positioning for DXA scans, was used to fixate the legs without regard for individual levels of femoral version. For the second scan, the participants’ hips were manually positioned according to their degree of femoral version determined by the Craig's test. We hypothesized that the bone mineral density (BMD) values from the customized positions would be lower due to the X-ray beams hitting the femoral neck perpendicularly. A paired </span><em>t</em>-test revealed weak evidence of a difference between BMD readings of the conventional and customized positions (<em>p-value = </em>0.065); moreover, contrary to our hypothesis, the BMD readings obtained in the standard position were lower than those obtained in the customized position, albeit not significantly. Our findings suggest that the Craig's test is not a valid clinical assessment of true femoral version. A secondary conclusion is that the widespread use of the standard wedge for hip positioning during DXA scans is a better option than trying to find a customized position that is based on findings of the Craig's test.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","volume":"27 1","pages":"Article 101466"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry does not confirm validity of the Craig's test\",\"authors\":\"Kelsey A. Clark, Savannah Nielsen, Taylor Heywood, Camille Nguyen, Ulrike H. Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>The Craig's test is a clinical assessment used to quantify femoral version. The validity of the Craig's test has been called into question due to instances where the test exhibits relatively poor correlation with three-dimensional imaging. Our study purpose was to use dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to indirectly assess the validity of the Craig's test. Twenty-three volunteers (n = 46; each hip analyzed separately) received two hip DXA scans using two different methods of positioning. During the first scan, a standard-sized wedge, the conventional tool of hip positioning for DXA scans, was used to fixate the legs without regard for individual levels of femoral version. For the second scan, the participants’ hips were manually positioned according to their degree of femoral version determined by the Craig's test. We hypothesized that the bone mineral density (BMD) values from the customized positions would be lower due to the X-ray beams hitting the femoral neck perpendicularly. A paired </span><em>t</em>-test revealed weak evidence of a difference between BMD readings of the conventional and customized positions (<em>p-value = </em>0.065); moreover, contrary to our hypothesis, the BMD readings obtained in the standard position were lower than those obtained in the customized position, albeit not significantly. Our findings suggest that the Craig's test is not a valid clinical assessment of true femoral version. A secondary conclusion is that the widespread use of the standard wedge for hip positioning during DXA scans is a better option than trying to find a customized position that is based on findings of the Craig's test.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Densitometry\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 101466\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Densitometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695024000015\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695024000015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言克雷格氏试验是一种用于量化股骨长度的临床评估方法。由于克雷格测试与三维成像的相关性相对较差,其有效性受到质疑。我们的研究目的是使用双能 X 射线吸收测量法(DXA)来间接评估克雷格测试的有效性。材料和方法23 名志愿者(n = 46;每个髋关节单独分析)接受了两次髋关节 DXA 扫描,采用两种不同的定位方法。在第一次扫描中,使用标准尺寸的楔子(DXA 扫描中髋关节定位的传统工具)固定双腿,而不考虑股骨版本的个体水平。在第二次扫描中,根据克雷格试验确定的股骨畸形程度对参与者的髋部进行手动定位。我们假设,由于 X 射线光束垂直照射股骨颈,定制体位的骨密度(BMD)值会更低。结果配对 t 检验显示,传统体位和定制体位的 BMD 读数之间存在微弱差异(p 值 = 0.结论我们的研究结果表明,克雷格测试并不是临床评估股骨真实情况的有效方法。另一个结论是,在 DXA 扫描中广泛使用标准楔形体进行髋关节定位,比根据克雷格试验结果寻找定制体位更好。
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry does not confirm validity of the Craig's test
The Craig's test is a clinical assessment used to quantify femoral version. The validity of the Craig's test has been called into question due to instances where the test exhibits relatively poor correlation with three-dimensional imaging. Our study purpose was to use dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to indirectly assess the validity of the Craig's test. Twenty-three volunteers (n = 46; each hip analyzed separately) received two hip DXA scans using two different methods of positioning. During the first scan, a standard-sized wedge, the conventional tool of hip positioning for DXA scans, was used to fixate the legs without regard for individual levels of femoral version. For the second scan, the participants’ hips were manually positioned according to their degree of femoral version determined by the Craig's test. We hypothesized that the bone mineral density (BMD) values from the customized positions would be lower due to the X-ray beams hitting the femoral neck perpendicularly. A paired t-test revealed weak evidence of a difference between BMD readings of the conventional and customized positions (p-value = 0.065); moreover, contrary to our hypothesis, the BMD readings obtained in the standard position were lower than those obtained in the customized position, albeit not significantly. Our findings suggest that the Craig's test is not a valid clinical assessment of true femoral version. A secondary conclusion is that the widespread use of the standard wedge for hip positioning during DXA scans is a better option than trying to find a customized position that is based on findings of the Craig's test.
期刊介绍:
The Journal is committed to serving ISCD''s mission - the education of heterogenous physician specialties and technologists who are involved in the clinical assessment of skeletal health. The focus of JCD is bone mass measurement, including epidemiology of bone mass, how drugs and diseases alter bone mass, new techniques and quality assurance in bone mass imaging technologies, and bone mass health/economics.
Combining high quality research and review articles with sound, practice-oriented advice, JCD meets the diverse diagnostic and management needs of radiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, rheumatologists, gynecologists, family physicians, internists, and technologists whose patients require diagnostic clinical densitometry for therapeutic management.