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
Trending Papers
Acute and non-acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (47/130).Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver 2024 March 2
Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2024 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM).Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 March 6
Ten Influential Point-of-Care Ultrasound Papers: 2023 in Review.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 20
Administration of methylene blue in septic shock: pros and cons.Critical Care : the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2024 Februrary 17
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