What Are the Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability of Gap and Stepoff Measurements in Acetabular Fractures?
Journal
Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
10
8
2020
medline:
25
5
2021
entrez:
10
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Gap and stepoff values in the treatment of acetabular fractures are correlated with clinical outcomes. However, the interobserver and intraobserver variability of gap and stepoff measurements for all imaging modalities in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phase of treatment is unknown. Recently, a standardized CT-based measurement method was introduced, which provided the opportunity to assess the level of variability. (1) In patients with acetabular fractures, what is the interobserver variability in the measurement of the fracture gaps and articular stepoffs determined by each observer to be the maximum one in the weightbearing dome, as measured on pre- and postoperative pelvic radiographs, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and pre- and postoperative CT scans? (2) What is the intraobserver variability in these measurements? Sixty patients with a complete subset of pre-, intra- and postoperative high-quality images (CT slices of < 2 mm), representing a variety of fracture types with small and large gaps and/or stepoffs, were included. A total of 196 patients with nonoperative treatment (n = 117), inadequate available imaging (n = 60), skeletal immaturity (n = 16), bilateral fractures (n = 2) or a primary THA (n = 1) were excluded. The maximum gap and stepoff values in the weightbearing dome were digitally measured on pelvic radiographs and CT images by five independent observers. Observers were free to decide which gap and/or stepoff they considered the maximum and then measure these before and after surgery. The observers were two trauma surgeons with more than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, two trauma surgeons with less than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, and one surgical resident. Additionally, the final intraoperative fluoroscopy images were assessed for the presence of a gap or stepoff in the weightbearing dome. All observers used the same standardized measurement technique and each observer measured the first five patients together with the responsible researcher. For 10 randomly selected patients, all measurements were repeated by all observers, at least 2 weeks after the initial measurements. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for pelvic radiographs and CT images and the kappa value for intraoperative fluoroscopy measurements were calculated to determine the inter- and intraobserver variability. Interobserver variability was defined as the difference in the measurements between observers. Intraobserver variability was defined as the difference in repeated measurements by the same observer. Preoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap and stepoff) on radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff) on CT images. The observers agreed on the indication for surgery in 40% (gap) and 30% (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. For CT scans the observers agreed in 95% (gap) and 70% (stepoff) of images. Postoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap) and 0.2 (stepoff) on radiographs. The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable or not in 60% (gap) and 40% (stepoff). On CT images the ICC was 0.3 (gap) and 0.4 (stepoff). The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable in 35% (gap) and 38% (stepoff). The preoperative intraobserver ICC was 0.6 (gap and stepoff) on pelvic radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.6 (stepoff) for CT scans. Postoperatively, the intraobserver ICC was 0.7 (gap) and 0.1 (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. On CT the intraobserver ICC was 0.5 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff). There was no agreement between the observers on the presence of a gap or stepoff on intraoperative fluoroscopy images (kappa -0.1 to 0.2). We found an insufficient interobserver and intraobserver agreement on measuring gaps and stepoffs for supporting clinical decisions in acetabular fracture surgery. If observers cannot agree on the size of the gap and stepoff, it will be challenging to decide when to perform surgery and study the results of acetabular fracture surgery. Level III, diagnostic study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Gap and stepoff values in the treatment of acetabular fractures are correlated with clinical outcomes. However, the interobserver and intraobserver variability of gap and stepoff measurements for all imaging modalities in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phase of treatment is unknown. Recently, a standardized CT-based measurement method was introduced, which provided the opportunity to assess the level of variability.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
(1) In patients with acetabular fractures, what is the interobserver variability in the measurement of the fracture gaps and articular stepoffs determined by each observer to be the maximum one in the weightbearing dome, as measured on pre- and postoperative pelvic radiographs, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and pre- and postoperative CT scans? (2) What is the intraobserver variability in these measurements?
METHODS
Sixty patients with a complete subset of pre-, intra- and postoperative high-quality images (CT slices of < 2 mm), representing a variety of fracture types with small and large gaps and/or stepoffs, were included. A total of 196 patients with nonoperative treatment (n = 117), inadequate available imaging (n = 60), skeletal immaturity (n = 16), bilateral fractures (n = 2) or a primary THA (n = 1) were excluded. The maximum gap and stepoff values in the weightbearing dome were digitally measured on pelvic radiographs and CT images by five independent observers. Observers were free to decide which gap and/or stepoff they considered the maximum and then measure these before and after surgery. The observers were two trauma surgeons with more than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, two trauma surgeons with less than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, and one surgical resident. Additionally, the final intraoperative fluoroscopy images were assessed for the presence of a gap or stepoff in the weightbearing dome. All observers used the same standardized measurement technique and each observer measured the first five patients together with the responsible researcher. For 10 randomly selected patients, all measurements were repeated by all observers, at least 2 weeks after the initial measurements. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for pelvic radiographs and CT images and the kappa value for intraoperative fluoroscopy measurements were calculated to determine the inter- and intraobserver variability. Interobserver variability was defined as the difference in the measurements between observers. Intraobserver variability was defined as the difference in repeated measurements by the same observer.
RESULTS
Preoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap and stepoff) on radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff) on CT images. The observers agreed on the indication for surgery in 40% (gap) and 30% (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. For CT scans the observers agreed in 95% (gap) and 70% (stepoff) of images. Postoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap) and 0.2 (stepoff) on radiographs. The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable or not in 60% (gap) and 40% (stepoff). On CT images the ICC was 0.3 (gap) and 0.4 (stepoff). The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable in 35% (gap) and 38% (stepoff). The preoperative intraobserver ICC was 0.6 (gap and stepoff) on pelvic radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.6 (stepoff) for CT scans. Postoperatively, the intraobserver ICC was 0.7 (gap) and 0.1 (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. On CT the intraobserver ICC was 0.5 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff). There was no agreement between the observers on the presence of a gap or stepoff on intraoperative fluoroscopy images (kappa -0.1 to 0.2).
CONCLUSIONS
We found an insufficient interobserver and intraobserver agreement on measuring gaps and stepoffs for supporting clinical decisions in acetabular fracture surgery. If observers cannot agree on the size of the gap and stepoff, it will be challenging to decide when to perform surgery and study the results of acetabular fracture surgery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, diagnostic study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32769535
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001398
pii: 00003086-202012000-00020
pmc: PMC7899427
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2801-2808Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Int Orthop. 2018 Aug;42(8):1957-1965
pubmed: 29396805
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Injury. 2009 Oct;40(10):1098-103
pubmed: 19577232
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Aug;29(8):354-8
pubmed: 26131566
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014 May-Jun;38(3):344-7
pubmed: 24681866
J Child Orthop. 2019 Dec 01;13(6):569-574
pubmed: 31908673
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Oct 18;99(20):1745-1752
pubmed: 29040129
JB JS Open Access. 2018 Feb 16;3(1):e0032
pubmed: 30229234
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jul;32(7):e284-e288
pubmed: 29481491
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Nov;472(11):3362-9
pubmed: 24867453
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 19;14(6):e0218612
pubmed: 31216346
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Jun 6;100(11):922-929
pubmed: 29870442
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 May-Jun;19(5):299-304
pubmed: 15891537
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Nov 20;101(22):2015-2025
pubmed: 31764364
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 May;103(3):325-329
pubmed: 28017876
J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2013 Sep 11;7(1):7
pubmed: 24025650
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32 Suppl 1:S1-S170
pubmed: 29256945
Orthopedics. 2012 May;35(5):e615-20
pubmed: 22588400
J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Aug;13(6):414-7
pubmed: 10459600
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Sep;85(9):1704-9
pubmed: 12954828
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2006 Aug;14(2):127-32
pubmed: 16914774
Injury. 2016 Apr;47(4):944-9
pubmed: 26777468
Acta Ortop Bras. 2012;20(2):70-4
pubmed: 24453583
J Orthop Trauma. 2002 Aug;16(7):449-56; discussion 456-7
pubmed: 12172273
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2000 Jun;8(1):33-37
pubmed: 12468873