Radiographic prediction of lunate morphology in Asians using plain radiographic and capitate-triquetrum distance analyses: reliability and compatibility with magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) findings.
Lunate morphology
Lunate type
MR arthrography
Medial hamate facet
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Mar 2019
27 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
26
10
2018
accepted:
26
02
2019
entrez:
29
3
2019
pubmed:
29
3
2019
medline:
10
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of plain radiographic methods of determining the lunate type and its compatibility with magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) findings. Plain radiographs of a total of 150 wrists were reviewed by three observers. Lunate types were evaluated using both conventional posteroanterior (PA) radiographic analysis and the capitate-triquetrum distance (CTD) analysis. Cohen kappa and Fleiss kappa statistics were used to estimate intra- and inter-observer reliabilities. Compatibility with the MRA findings, as assessed by each observer, was investigated. The overall intra-observer reliability was 0.517 for the analysis and 0.589 for the CTD analysis. The overall inter-observer agreement was 0.448 for the PA radiographic analysis and 0.581 for the CTD analysis. The PA radiographic analysis and MRA findings for the detection of medial lunate facets were compatible in 119 of the 150 patients (79.3%). Twenty-eight (90.3%) of the 31 incompatible wrists had a medial facet on MRA (Type II), which was not detected in the PA radiographic analysis. In the CTD analysis, the results for 27 of 29 Type II lunates (93.1%) and 39 of 45 Type I lunates (86.7%) were compatible with the MRA. This study suggests that predicting the lunate type by plain radiographs alone is insufficient, as both radiographic analyses showed moderate intra- and inter-observer reliabilities. Although both radiographic analyses showed good compatibility with the MRA for Type II lunates, clinicians should be alert to undetected medial facets in Type I lunates on PA radiographic analysis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of plain radiographic methods of determining the lunate type and its compatibility with magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) findings.
METHODS
METHODS
Plain radiographs of a total of 150 wrists were reviewed by three observers. Lunate types were evaluated using both conventional posteroanterior (PA) radiographic analysis and the capitate-triquetrum distance (CTD) analysis. Cohen kappa and Fleiss kappa statistics were used to estimate intra- and inter-observer reliabilities. Compatibility with the MRA findings, as assessed by each observer, was investigated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall intra-observer reliability was 0.517 for the analysis and 0.589 for the CTD analysis. The overall inter-observer agreement was 0.448 for the PA radiographic analysis and 0.581 for the CTD analysis. The PA radiographic analysis and MRA findings for the detection of medial lunate facets were compatible in 119 of the 150 patients (79.3%). Twenty-eight (90.3%) of the 31 incompatible wrists had a medial facet on MRA (Type II), which was not detected in the PA radiographic analysis. In the CTD analysis, the results for 27 of 29 Type II lunates (93.1%) and 39 of 45 Type I lunates (86.7%) were compatible with the MRA.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that predicting the lunate type by plain radiographs alone is insufficient, as both radiographic analyses showed moderate intra- and inter-observer reliabilities. Although both radiographic analyses showed good compatibility with the MRA for Type II lunates, clinicians should be alert to undetected medial facets in Type I lunates on PA radiographic analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30917814
doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2483-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-019-2483-6
pmc: PMC6437918
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Pagination
128Références
J Hand Surg Am. 1976 Sep;1(2):110-8
pubmed: 1018078
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Aug;173(2):335-8
pubmed: 10430130
J Hand Surg Am. 2000 Sep;25(5):877-88
pubmed: 11040303
J Hand Surg Am. 2001 May;26(3):428-36
pubmed: 11418903
Skeletal Radiol. 2002 Aug;31(8):451-6
pubmed: 12172592
Skeletal Radiol. 2006 May;35(5):288-94
pubmed: 16534640
Acta Radiol. 2007 Feb;48(1):96-103
pubmed: 17325933
J Hand Surg Am. 2007 Jul-Aug;32(6):842-7
pubmed: 17606064
J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Nov;34(9):1633-9
pubmed: 19833447
Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 Jan;35(1):79-83
pubmed: 22706636
J Hand Surg Am. 1990 Jul;15(4):564-71
pubmed: 2380518
Skeletal Radiol. 2013 Sep;42(9):1277-85
pubmed: 23812413
J Hand Surg Am. 2015 Apr;40(4):738-44
pubmed: 25701489
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2016 Nov;57(6):601-610
pubmed: 27629105
J Hand Surg Am. 1995 Jan;20(1):38-41
pubmed: 7722262
J Hand Surg Br. 1995 Apr;20(2):165-70
pubmed: 7797964
Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi. 1993 Dec;67(12):1114-21
pubmed: 8308408
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Hand Surg Am. 1993 May;18(3):463-75
pubmed: 8515018