Cargando…

Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?

BACKGROUND: Tibial torsional malalignment presents a well-known complication of intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. PURPOSE: Objective of this study was to investigate the ability to clinically assess tibial torsion differences. Computed Tomography (CT) was used here as the gold stand...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hawi, Humam, Kaireit, Till Frederik, Krettek, Christian, Liodakis, Emmanouil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9360086/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35146543
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-01884-4
_version_ 1784764276063338496
author Hawi, Humam
Kaireit, Till Frederik
Krettek, Christian
Liodakis, Emmanouil
author_facet Hawi, Humam
Kaireit, Till Frederik
Krettek, Christian
Liodakis, Emmanouil
author_sort Hawi, Humam
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Tibial torsional malalignment presents a well-known complication of intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. PURPOSE: Objective of this study was to investigate the ability to clinically assess tibial torsion differences. Computed Tomography (CT) was used here as the gold standard. Further, intra- and inter-observer reliability of the clinical examination, and radiological measurements were calculated. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with torsion-difference CTs, obtained for various reasons, were asked to kneel on an examination couch with free hanging feet. All patients are positioned with 90° flexed knee and neutral ankle. A picture of the lower extremities was obtained from the back of the patient. Two blinded orthopedic surgeons were asked to look at the pictures and measure the tibial torsion with a digital goniometer, based on the axis of the femur in relation to the second ray of the foot. To determine the intra-observer variation, the torsional angles were calculated again after 4 weeks. To be able to compare values, two blinded radiologists calculated torsional differences based on computed tomography. RESULTS: All patients were able to be positioned for clinical assessment (n = 51). Clinical assessment of torsional difference revealed 4.55° ± 6.85 for the first, respectively, 4.55° ± 7.41 for the second investigator. The second measurement of the first investigator revealed a value of 4.57° ± 6.9. There was a good intra-observer agreement for clinical assessment (ICC 0.993, p < 0.001). Also, the inter-observer agreement showed a good inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.949, p < 0.001). Evaluation of radiological inter-observer assessment could also show a good inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.922, p < 0.001). The clinical method showed a good correlation to the CT method (0.839, p < 0.001). Additionally, the Bland–Altman plot was used to compare graphically both measurement techniques, which proved the agreement. CONCLUSION: In summary, computed tomography-assisted measurement of tibial torsion and clinical assessment correlated significantly good. In addition to that, clinical measurement has a good intra- and inter-observer reliability. Clinical examination is a reliable and cost-effective tool to detect mal-torsion and should be part of the repertoire of every surgeon.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9360086
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93600862022-08-10 Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography? Hawi, Humam Kaireit, Till Frederik Krettek, Christian Liodakis, Emmanouil Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: Tibial torsional malalignment presents a well-known complication of intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. PURPOSE: Objective of this study was to investigate the ability to clinically assess tibial torsion differences. Computed Tomography (CT) was used here as the gold standard. Further, intra- and inter-observer reliability of the clinical examination, and radiological measurements were calculated. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with torsion-difference CTs, obtained for various reasons, were asked to kneel on an examination couch with free hanging feet. All patients are positioned with 90° flexed knee and neutral ankle. A picture of the lower extremities was obtained from the back of the patient. Two blinded orthopedic surgeons were asked to look at the pictures and measure the tibial torsion with a digital goniometer, based on the axis of the femur in relation to the second ray of the foot. To determine the intra-observer variation, the torsional angles were calculated again after 4 weeks. To be able to compare values, two blinded radiologists calculated torsional differences based on computed tomography. RESULTS: All patients were able to be positioned for clinical assessment (n = 51). Clinical assessment of torsional difference revealed 4.55° ± 6.85 for the first, respectively, 4.55° ± 7.41 for the second investigator. The second measurement of the first investigator revealed a value of 4.57° ± 6.9. There was a good intra-observer agreement for clinical assessment (ICC 0.993, p < 0.001). Also, the inter-observer agreement showed a good inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.949, p < 0.001). Evaluation of radiological inter-observer assessment could also show a good inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.922, p < 0.001). The clinical method showed a good correlation to the CT method (0.839, p < 0.001). Additionally, the Bland–Altman plot was used to compare graphically both measurement techniques, which proved the agreement. CONCLUSION: In summary, computed tomography-assisted measurement of tibial torsion and clinical assessment correlated significantly good. In addition to that, clinical measurement has a good intra- and inter-observer reliability. Clinical examination is a reliable and cost-effective tool to detect mal-torsion and should be part of the repertoire of every surgeon. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-02-10 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9360086/ /pubmed/35146543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-01884-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Hawi, Humam
Kaireit, Till Frederik
Krettek, Christian
Liodakis, Emmanouil
Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?
title Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?
title_full Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?
title_fullStr Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?
title_full_unstemmed Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?
title_short Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?
title_sort clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. do we always need a computed tomography?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9360086/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35146543
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-01884-4
work_keys_str_mv AT hawihumam clinicalassessmentoftibialtorsiondifferencesdowealwaysneedacomputedtomography
AT kaireittillfrederik clinicalassessmentoftibialtorsiondifferencesdowealwaysneedacomputedtomography
AT krettekchristian clinicalassessmentoftibialtorsiondifferencesdowealwaysneedacomputedtomography
AT liodakisemmanouil clinicalassessmentoftibialtorsiondifferencesdowealwaysneedacomputedtomography