We have located links that may give you full text access.
Determining Hinge Abduction in Legg-Calvé-Perthes Disease: Can We Reliably Make the Diagnosis?
Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics 2019 Februrary
BACKGROUND: Although hinge abduction is recognized as an important finding in children with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, variable diagnostic criteria exist. The purpose of this study was (1) to test the interobserver and intraobserver agreement of the current definition of hinge abduction and (2) to develop consensus regarding key diagnostic features that could be used to improve our diagnostic criteria.
METHODS: Four orthopaedic surgeons with subspecialty pediatric hip interest independently assessed 30 randomly ordered cases of Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease. Each case included 2 fluoroscopic images of hip arthrograms (anteroposterior and abduction views). Surgeons graded the cases in a binary manner (hinge/no-hinge) on 2 separate occasions separated by a 4-week interval. Following reliability testing and comprehensive review of the literature, consensus-building sessions were conducted to identify key diagnostic features. Surgeons then regraded a new series of cases. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement between first/second and third/fourth readings were assessed using the Fleiss κ.
RESULTS: Interobserver κ for hinge abduction between the first and second surveys was 0.52 (with 0.41 to 0.60 considered moderate agreement), compared with 0.56 for the third and fourth surveys. First and second reading intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.59 to 0.83 compared with 0.75 to 1.00 for third and fourth reading. Consensus sessions identified several key diagnostic factors including: adequate visualization of the labral contour and ability of the lateral epiphysis to slip below the chondrolabral complex in abduction. Medial dye pooling, often due to asphericity of the femoral head, was not found to be a useful diagnostic criterion.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a combined experience of over 70 years among the reviewers, we found just slightly better than 50:50 agreement in what constitutes hinge abduction. Consensus discussions did improve our agreement but these modest changes emphasize how difficult it is to develop reliable diagnostic criteria for hinge abduction. As a result, we caution against using hinge abduction as an inclusion criteria or outcome measure for research purposes, as the diagnostic agreement can be inconsistent.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-diagnostic study.
METHODS: Four orthopaedic surgeons with subspecialty pediatric hip interest independently assessed 30 randomly ordered cases of Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease. Each case included 2 fluoroscopic images of hip arthrograms (anteroposterior and abduction views). Surgeons graded the cases in a binary manner (hinge/no-hinge) on 2 separate occasions separated by a 4-week interval. Following reliability testing and comprehensive review of the literature, consensus-building sessions were conducted to identify key diagnostic features. Surgeons then regraded a new series of cases. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement between first/second and third/fourth readings were assessed using the Fleiss κ.
RESULTS: Interobserver κ for hinge abduction between the first and second surveys was 0.52 (with 0.41 to 0.60 considered moderate agreement), compared with 0.56 for the third and fourth surveys. First and second reading intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.59 to 0.83 compared with 0.75 to 1.00 for third and fourth reading. Consensus sessions identified several key diagnostic factors including: adequate visualization of the labral contour and ability of the lateral epiphysis to slip below the chondrolabral complex in abduction. Medial dye pooling, often due to asphericity of the femoral head, was not found to be a useful diagnostic criterion.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a combined experience of over 70 years among the reviewers, we found just slightly better than 50:50 agreement in what constitutes hinge abduction. Consensus discussions did improve our agreement but these modest changes emphasize how difficult it is to develop reliable diagnostic criteria for hinge abduction. As a result, we caution against using hinge abduction as an inclusion criteria or outcome measure for research purposes, as the diagnostic agreement can be inconsistent.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-diagnostic study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app