前交叉韧带重建后股骨隧道孔径位置测量的可靠性：象限法与解剖坐标法

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Knee Pub Date : 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1016/j.knee.2025.05.007

Jong-Hyub Song , Sung-Sahn Lee , Dae-Hee Lee

{"title":"前交叉韧带重建后股骨隧道孔径位置测量的可靠性：象限法与解剖坐标法","authors":"Jong-Hyub Song , Sung-Sahn Lee , Dae-Hee Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.knee.2025.05.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The purpose was to quantitatively compare the reliability of the quadrant and ACA methods in identifying the position of the femoral tunnel aperture after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using 3D-CT.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study included 90 patients (90 knees) who underwent primary single-bundle ACLR. 3D-CT was performed on each knee, and the femoral tunnels were evaluated twice each by two observers using both the quadrant and anatomical coordinate axes (ACA) methods. The data were analyzed statistically to determine the inter and intraobserver reliabilities using an intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC, excellent (>0.9), good (0.75–0.9), moderate (0.5–0.75), poor (<0.5)].</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Regarding intraobserver comparisons, the ICCs of quadrant method (1st observer: excellent, 2nd observer: excellent) were better than ACA method (1st observer: good, 2nd observer: good) on Y-axis. Both methods showed good ICCs on X-axis. Regarding interobserver comparisons, the ICCs of the ACA method were better than those of the quadrant method on the X-axis. (1st measurement: moderate, 2nd measurement: good vs. 1st measurement: good, 2nd measurement: good) However, ICCs of quadrant method were better on the Y-axis. (1st measurement: excellent, 2nd measurement: excellent vs. 1st measurement: excellent, 2nd measurement: good).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>For measuring the femoral tunnel aperture on 3D-CT after ACLR, the quadrant method showed better intraobserver and interobserver reliability on Y-axis, whereas the ACA method showed better interobserver reliability on the X-axis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56110,"journal":{"name":"Knee","volume":"56 ","pages":"Pages 22-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of measuring femoral tunnel aperture location after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: quadrant method versus anatomical coordinate axes method\",\"authors\":\"Jong-Hyub Song , Sung-Sahn Lee , Dae-Hee Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.knee.2025.05.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The purpose was to quantitatively compare the reliability of the quadrant and ACA methods in identifying the position of the femoral tunnel aperture after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using 3D-CT.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study included 90 patients (90 knees) who underwent primary single-bundle ACLR. 3D-CT was performed on each knee, and the femoral tunnels were evaluated twice each by two observers using both the quadrant and anatomical coordinate axes (ACA) methods. The data were analyzed statistically to determine the inter and intraobserver reliabilities using an intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC, excellent (>0.9), good (0.75–0.9), moderate (0.5–0.75), poor (<0.5)].</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Regarding intraobserver comparisons, the ICCs of quadrant method (1st observer: excellent, 2nd observer: excellent) were better than ACA method (1st observer: good, 2nd observer: good) on Y-axis. Both methods showed good ICCs on X-axis. Regarding interobserver comparisons, the ICCs of the ACA method were better than those of the quadrant method on the X-axis. (1st measurement: moderate, 2nd measurement: good vs. 1st measurement: good, 2nd measurement: good) However, ICCs of quadrant method were better on the Y-axis. (1st measurement: excellent, 2nd measurement: excellent vs. 1st measurement: excellent, 2nd measurement: good).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>For measuring the femoral tunnel aperture on 3D-CT after ACLR, the quadrant method showed better intraobserver and interobserver reliability on Y-axis, whereas the ACA method showed better interobserver reliability on the X-axis.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee\",\"volume\":\"56 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 22-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968016025001139\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968016025001139","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的是定量比较象限和ACA方法在3D-CT识别ACL重建（ACLR）后股骨隧道孔位置的可靠性。方法本研究纳入90例（90膝）行原发性单束ACLR的患者。对每个膝关节进行3D-CT检查，并由两名观察员分别使用象限和解剖坐标轴（ACA）方法对股骨隧道进行两次评估。对数据进行统计分析，使用类内相关系数[ICC，优秀（>0.9），良好（0.75-0.9），中等（0.5 - 0.75），差（<0.5）]确定观察者间和观察者内的信度。结果在观察者内比较中，象限法（第一观察者：优秀，第二观察者：优秀）的ICCs在y轴上优于ACA法（第一观察者：良好，第二观察者：良好）。两种方法在x轴上均显示出良好的icc。在观察者间比较方面，ACA方法的ICCs在x轴上优于象限方法。（第一次测量：一般，第二次测量：良好vs.第一次测量：良好，第二次测量：良好）然而，象限法的ICCs在y轴上更好。（第一次测量：优秀，第二次测量：优秀vs.第一次测量：优秀，第二次测量：良好）。结论在ACLR术后3D-CT上测量股骨隧道孔径时，象限法在y轴上具有较好的观察者内和观察者间信度，而ACA法在x轴上具有较好的观察者间信度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Reliability of measuring femoral tunnel aperture location after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: quadrant method versus anatomical coordinate axes method

Background

The purpose was to quantitatively compare the reliability of the quadrant and ACA methods in identifying the position of the femoral tunnel aperture after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using 3D-CT.

Methods

This study included 90 patients (90 knees) who underwent primary single-bundle ACLR. 3D-CT was performed on each knee, and the femoral tunnels were evaluated twice each by two observers using both the quadrant and anatomical coordinate axes (ACA) methods. The data were analyzed statistically to determine the inter and intraobserver reliabilities using an intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC, excellent (>0.9), good (0.75–0.9), moderate (0.5–0.75), poor (<0.5)].

Results

Regarding intraobserver comparisons, the ICCs of quadrant method (1st observer: excellent, 2nd observer: excellent) were better than ACA method (1st observer: good, 2nd observer: good) on Y-axis. Both methods showed good ICCs on X-axis. Regarding interobserver comparisons, the ICCs of the ACA method were better than those of the quadrant method on the X-axis. (1st measurement: moderate, 2nd measurement: good vs. 1st measurement: good, 2nd measurement: good) However, ICCs of quadrant method were better on the Y-axis. (1st measurement: excellent, 2nd measurement: excellent vs. 1st measurement: excellent, 2nd measurement: good).

Conclusion

For measuring the femoral tunnel aperture on 3D-CT after ACLR, the quadrant method showed better intraobserver and interobserver reliability on Y-axis, whereas the ACA method showed better interobserver reliability on the X-axis.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Knee 医学-外科

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

5.30%

发文量

171

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： The Knee is an international journal publishing studies on the clinical treatment and fundamental biomechanical characteristics of this joint. The aim of the journal is to provide a vehicle relevant to surgeons, biomedical engineers, imaging specialists, materials scientists, rehabilitation personnel and all those with an interest in the knee. The topics covered include, but are not limited to: • Anatomy, physiology, morphology and biochemistry; • Biomechanical studies; • Advances in the development of prosthetic, orthotic and augmentation devices; • Imaging and diagnostic techniques; • Pathology; • Trauma; • Surgery; • Rehabilitation.