根据Essex-Lopresti和Sanders分类,Böhler和Gissane角在不同跟骨骨折中的间信度

R. Barroco, B. R. Miranda, Herbert Amantéa Fernandes, Gregory Bittar Pessoa, D. R. Nishikawa, Letícia Zaccaria Prates de Oliveira, Á. D. D. De Freitas, Caio Ivo de Almeida
{"title":"根据Essex-Lopresti和Sanders分类,Böhler和Gissane角在不同跟骨骨折中的间信度","authors":"R. Barroco, B. R. Miranda, Herbert Amantéa Fernandes, Gregory Bittar Pessoa, D. R. Nishikawa, Letícia Zaccaria Prates de Oliveira, Á. D. D. De Freitas, Caio Ivo de Almeida","doi":"10.30795/jfootankle.2021.v15.1535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of Böhler’s angle and the critical angle of Gissane in calcaneal fractures, stratified by severity and by the Essex-Lopresti and Sanders classifications. Methods: Retrospective study of radiographs obtained from 97 patients: 67 with calcaneal fractures and 30 with normal lateral radiographs (used as a control group). Böhler’s angle and the angle of Gissane were measured by six raters: two orthopedic surgery residents, two musculoskeletal radiologists, a foot and ankle surgery fellow, and a senior consultant in foot surgery. Statistical analysis of inter-rater reliability was performed for the two angles, in the sample overall and stratified by the different radiographic and CT subtypes of calcaneal fractures. Results: For the angle of Gissane, the ICC was at best 0.400 (95% CI: 0.250 to 0.581) for normal radiographs, with poor agreement across all classifications and severity stratifications. For Böhler’s angle, the ICC values indicated weak to moderate agreement, with the best reproducibility obtained for the overall sample (0.740; 95% CI: 0.673 to 0.801). In Sanders type 1 fractures, the ICC was 0.704 (95% CI: 0.397 to 0.940), and in Sanders type 2 fractures, 0.762 (95% CI: 0.634 to 0.870). Conclusion: Böhler’s angle is more reproducible than the critical angle of Gissane, with greater inter-rater reliability among fractures deemed less severe on the Sanders classification, although the overall ICC ranged from weak to moderate at best. Level of Evidence III; Case Control Study; Diagnostic Studies.","PeriodicalId":21602,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Journal of the Foot & Ankle","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-rater reliability of Böhler and Gissane angles in different calcaneal fracture according to the Essex-Lopresti and Sanders classifications\",\"authors\":\"R. Barroco, B. R. Miranda, Herbert Amantéa Fernandes, Gregory Bittar Pessoa, D. R. Nishikawa, Letícia Zaccaria Prates de Oliveira, Á. D. D. De Freitas, Caio Ivo de Almeida\",\"doi\":\"10.30795/jfootankle.2021.v15.1535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of Böhler’s angle and the critical angle of Gissane in calcaneal fractures, stratified by severity and by the Essex-Lopresti and Sanders classifications. Methods: Retrospective study of radiographs obtained from 97 patients: 67 with calcaneal fractures and 30 with normal lateral radiographs (used as a control group). Böhler’s angle and the angle of Gissane were measured by six raters: two orthopedic surgery residents, two musculoskeletal radiologists, a foot and ankle surgery fellow, and a senior consultant in foot surgery. Statistical analysis of inter-rater reliability was performed for the two angles, in the sample overall and stratified by the different radiographic and CT subtypes of calcaneal fractures. Results: For the angle of Gissane, the ICC was at best 0.400 (95% CI: 0.250 to 0.581) for normal radiographs, with poor agreement across all classifications and severity stratifications. For Böhler’s angle, the ICC values indicated weak to moderate agreement, with the best reproducibility obtained for the overall sample (0.740; 95% CI: 0.673 to 0.801). In Sanders type 1 fractures, the ICC was 0.704 (95% CI: 0.397 to 0.940), and in Sanders type 2 fractures, 0.762 (95% CI: 0.634 to 0.870). Conclusion: Böhler’s angle is more reproducible than the critical angle of Gissane, with greater inter-rater reliability among fractures deemed less severe on the Sanders classification, although the overall ICC ranged from weak to moderate at best. Level of Evidence III; Case Control Study; Diagnostic Studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Journal of the Foot & Ankle\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Journal of the Foot & Ankle\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30795/jfootankle.2021.v15.1535\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Journal of the Foot & Ankle","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30795/jfootankle.2021.v15.1535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:评价跟骨骨折中Böhler’s角和Gissane临界角按严重程度分层及essexlopresti和Sanders分类的分级信度和分级内相关系数(ICC)。方法:回顾性研究97例患者的x线片,其中跟骨骨折67例,正常侧位片30例(作为对照组)。Böhler的角度和Gissane的角度由六名评分员测量:两名骨科住院医师,两名肌肉骨骼放射科医生,一名足部和踝关节外科研究员,以及一名足部外科高级顾问。根据跟骨骨折的不同x线和CT分型,对两个角度进行整体和分层的可靠性统计分析。结果:对于Gissane角度,正常x线片的ICC最高为0.400 (95% CI: 0.250至0.581),所有分类和严重程度分层的一致性较差。对于Böhler的角度,ICC值显示弱到中等的一致性,在整个样品中获得了最佳的再现性(0.740;95% CI: 0.673 ~ 0.801)。Sanders 1型骨折ICC为0.704 (95% CI: 0.397 ~ 0.940), Sanders 2型骨折ICC为0.762 (95% CI: 0.634 ~ 0.870)。结论:Böhler的角度比Gissane的临界角更具有可重复性,在Sanders分类中被认为不太严重的骨折中具有更高的等级间可靠性,尽管总体ICC的范围从弱到中等。证据等级III;病例对照研究;诊断的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inter-rater reliability of Böhler and Gissane angles in different calcaneal fracture according to the Essex-Lopresti and Sanders classifications
Objective: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of Böhler’s angle and the critical angle of Gissane in calcaneal fractures, stratified by severity and by the Essex-Lopresti and Sanders classifications. Methods: Retrospective study of radiographs obtained from 97 patients: 67 with calcaneal fractures and 30 with normal lateral radiographs (used as a control group). Böhler’s angle and the angle of Gissane were measured by six raters: two orthopedic surgery residents, two musculoskeletal radiologists, a foot and ankle surgery fellow, and a senior consultant in foot surgery. Statistical analysis of inter-rater reliability was performed for the two angles, in the sample overall and stratified by the different radiographic and CT subtypes of calcaneal fractures. Results: For the angle of Gissane, the ICC was at best 0.400 (95% CI: 0.250 to 0.581) for normal radiographs, with poor agreement across all classifications and severity stratifications. For Böhler’s angle, the ICC values indicated weak to moderate agreement, with the best reproducibility obtained for the overall sample (0.740; 95% CI: 0.673 to 0.801). In Sanders type 1 fractures, the ICC was 0.704 (95% CI: 0.397 to 0.940), and in Sanders type 2 fractures, 0.762 (95% CI: 0.634 to 0.870). Conclusion: Böhler’s angle is more reproducible than the critical angle of Gissane, with greater inter-rater reliability among fractures deemed less severe on the Sanders classification, although the overall ICC ranged from weak to moderate at best. Level of Evidence III; Case Control Study; Diagnostic Studies.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信