Reproducibility of a new classification of the anterior clinoid process of the sphenoid bone.
Anterior clinoid process
Cavernous sinus
Optic strut
Skull base
Sphenoid bone
Journal
Surgical neurology international
ISSN: 2229-5097
Titre abrégé: Surg Neurol Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101535836
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
29
03
2020
accepted:
08
07
2020
entrez:
9
10
2020
pubmed:
10
10
2020
medline:
10
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pneumatization of the anterior clinoid process (ACP) affects paraclinoid region surgery, this anatomical variation occurs in 6.6-27.7% of individuals, making its preoperative recognition essential given the need for correction based on the anatomy of the pneumatized process. This study was conducted to evaluate the reproducibility of an optic strut-based ACP pneumatization classification by presenting radiological examinations to a group of surgeons. Thirty cranial computer tomography (CT) scans performed from 2013 to 2014 were selected for analysis by neurosurgery residents and neurosurgeons. The evaluators received Google Forms with questionnaires on each scan, DICOM files to be manipulated in the Horos software for multiplanar reconstruction, and a collection of slides demonstrating the steps for classifying each type of ACP pneumatization. Interobserver agreement was calculated by the Fleiss kappa test. Thirty CT scans were analyzed by 37 evaluators, of whom 20 were neurosurgery residents and 17 were neurosurgeons. The overall reproducibility of the ACP pneumatization classification showed a Fleiss kappa index of 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.50). The interobserver agreement indices for the residents and neurosurgeons were 0.52 (0.51-0.53) and 0.49 (0.48-0.50), respectively, and the difference was statistically significant ( The optic strut-based classification of ACP pneumatization showed acceptable concordance. Minor differences were observed in the agreement between the residents and neurosurgeons. These differences could be explained by the residents' presumably higher familiarity with multiplanar reconstruction software.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pneumatization of the anterior clinoid process (ACP) affects paraclinoid region surgery, this anatomical variation occurs in 6.6-27.7% of individuals, making its preoperative recognition essential given the need for correction based on the anatomy of the pneumatized process. This study was conducted to evaluate the reproducibility of an optic strut-based ACP pneumatization classification by presenting radiological examinations to a group of surgeons.
METHODS
METHODS
Thirty cranial computer tomography (CT) scans performed from 2013 to 2014 were selected for analysis by neurosurgery residents and neurosurgeons. The evaluators received Google Forms with questionnaires on each scan, DICOM files to be manipulated in the Horos software for multiplanar reconstruction, and a collection of slides demonstrating the steps for classifying each type of ACP pneumatization. Interobserver agreement was calculated by the Fleiss kappa test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty CT scans were analyzed by 37 evaluators, of whom 20 were neurosurgery residents and 17 were neurosurgeons. The overall reproducibility of the ACP pneumatization classification showed a Fleiss kappa index of 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.50). The interobserver agreement indices for the residents and neurosurgeons were 0.52 (0.51-0.53) and 0.49 (0.48-0.50), respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The optic strut-based classification of ACP pneumatization showed acceptable concordance. Minor differences were observed in the agreement between the residents and neurosurgeons. These differences could be explained by the residents' presumably higher familiarity with multiplanar reconstruction software.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33033643
doi: 10.25259/SNI_133_2020
pii: SNI-11-281
pmc: PMC7538961
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
281Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Surgical Neurology International.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Neurosurg Rev. 2013 Jan;36(1):99-114; discussion 114-5
pubmed: 22898891
J Clin Neurosci. 2011 Jan;18(1):13-22
pubmed: 21126877
J Neurosurg. 1968 Jul;29(1):24-31
pubmed: 5674088
Surg Neurol. 1999 May;51(5):477-87; discussion 487-8
pubmed: 10321876
World Neurosurg. 2010 Mar;73(3):137-46; discussion e17, e19
pubmed: 20860951
J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Aug;20(8):1127-33
pubmed: 23746571
Surg Neurol Int. 2011;2:140
pubmed: 22059135
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Feb;156(2):415-9; discussion 419
pubmed: 24322583
Neurosurgery. 2002 Mar;50(3):558-62
pubmed: 11841724
J Neurosurg. 2008 Jun;108(6):1200-10
pubmed: 18518728
Neurosurgery. 2006 Jul;59(1 Suppl 1):ONS101-7; discussion ONS101-7
pubmed: 16888539
J Clin Neurosci. 2010 Jan;17(1):38-42
pubmed: 20005719
World Neurosurg. 2015 Apr;83(4):635-43
pubmed: 25527880
Neurosurgery. 2011 Feb;68(2):355-70; discussion 370-1
pubmed: 21135716
J Neurosurg. 1990 May;72(5):677-91
pubmed: 2324793
Neurosurgery. 2002 Oct;51(4 Suppl):S335-74
pubmed: 12234453
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2004 Jun;62(2A):322-9
pubmed: 15235739
J Neurosurg. 2007 Jan;106(1):170-4
pubmed: 17236504
Neurosurg Rev. 2010 Jul;33(3):367-73; discussion 374
pubmed: 20333429
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2016 Sep 1;12(3):289-297
pubmed: 29506115
J Neurosurg. 1985 May;62(5):667-72
pubmed: 3989589
Neurosurgery. 2002 Oct;51(4 Suppl):S375-410
pubmed: 12234454
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571