Andrea B Rosskopf1,2, Florian M Buck3,4, Christian W A Pfirrmann3,4, Leonhard E Ramseier4,5. 1. Radiology, University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland. andrea.rosskopf@balgrist.ch. 2. University of Zurich, Faculty of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland. andrea.rosskopf@balgrist.ch. 3. Radiology, University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. University of Zurich, Faculty of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the reliability and interchangeability of femoral (FT) and tibial torsion (TT) measurements in children using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared to measurements on 3D models based on biplanar radiographs (BPR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: FT and TT were measured in 60 children (mean age 10.1 years; range 6.2-16.2 years; 28 female) using axial MR images by two readers. MR measurements were compared to measurements based on BPR-3D models by two separate independent readers. Interreader and intermethod agreements were calculated using descriptive statistics, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: FT/TT was -8.4°-54.1°/0°-45.9° on MR images and -13°-63°/4°-52° for measurements on BPR-3D models. The median of difference between the two methods was -0.18° (range -13.6°-19.1°) for FT and -0.20° (range -18.4°-9.5°) for TT, respectively. Interreader agreement (ICC) of FT/TT measurements was 0.98/0.96 on MR images and 0.98/0.94 on BPR 3D models. Intermethod agreement (ICC) for MR measurements was 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-0.96] for FT and of 0.86 (CI, 0.24-0.95) for TT. Mean interreader differences at MR were 3.1° (0.0°-8.0°) for FT and 3.2° (0.1°-9.5°) for TT. On Bland-Altman plots all measurements were within the 95% limit of agreement (-10.8°; 11.5° for FT; -14.6°; 4.2°) for TT-except for five measurements of FT and six measurements of TT. CONCLUSION: FT measurements on MR images are comparable to measurements using BPR-3D models. TT measurements differ between the two modalities, but the discrepancy is comparable to measurement variations between CT and BPR.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the reliability and interchangeability of femoral (FT) and tibial torsion (TT) measurements in children using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared to measurements on 3D models based on biplanar radiographs (BPR). MATERIALS AND METHODS:FT and TT were measured in 60 children (mean age 10.1 years; range 6.2-16.2 years; 28 female) using axial MR images by two readers. MR measurements were compared to measurements based on BPR-3D models by two separate independent readers. Interreader and intermethod agreements were calculated using descriptive statistics, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS:FT/TT was -8.4°-54.1°/0°-45.9° on MR images and -13°-63°/4°-52° for measurements on BPR-3D models. The median of difference between the two methods was -0.18° (range -13.6°-19.1°) for FT and -0.20° (range -18.4°-9.5°) for TT, respectively. Interreader agreement (ICC) of FT/TT measurements was 0.98/0.96 on MR images and 0.98/0.94 on BPR 3D models. Intermethod agreement (ICC) for MR measurements was 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-0.96] for FT and of 0.86 (CI, 0.24-0.95) for TT. Mean interreader differences at MR were 3.1° (0.0°-8.0°) for FT and 3.2° (0.1°-9.5°) for TT. On Bland-Altman plots all measurements were within the 95% limit of agreement (-10.8°; 11.5° for FT; -14.6°; 4.2°) for TT-except for five measurements of FT and six measurements of TT. CONCLUSION:FT measurements on MR images are comparable to measurements using BPR-3D models. TT measurements differ between the two modalities, but the discrepancy is comparable to measurement variations between CT and BPR.
Authors: Y Chaibi; T Cresson; B Aubert; J Hausselle; P Neyret; O Hauger; J A de Guise; W Skalli Journal: Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 1.763
Authors: Andrea B Rosskopf; Leonhard E Ramseier; Reto Sutter; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Florian M Buck Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Vasco V Mascarenhas; Miguel O Castro; P Diana Afonso; Paulo Rego; Michael Dienst; Reto Sutter; Florian Schmaranzer; Luca Sconfienza; Ara Kassarjian; Olufemi R Ayeni; Paul E Beaulé; Pedro Dantas; Radhesh Lalam; Marc-André Weber; Filip M Vanhoenacker; Tobias Johannes Dietrich; Lennart Jans; Philip Robinson; Apostolos H Karantanas; Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska; Suzanne Anderson; Iris Noebauer-Huhmann; Oliver Marin-Peña; Diego Collado; Marc Tey-Pons; Ehrenfried Schmaranzer; Mario Padron; Josef Kramer; Patrick O Zingg; Michel De Maeseneer; Eva Llopis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christina I Esposito; Theodore T Miller; Joseph D Lipman; Kaitlin M Carroll; Douglas E Padgett; David J Mayman; Seth A Jerabek Journal: HSS J Date: 2019-02-05
Authors: Stephan Waelti; Tim Fischer; Jennifer Griessinger; Johannes Cip; Tobias Johannes Dietrich; Michael Ditchfield; Thomas Allmendinger; Michael Messerli; Stefan Markart Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2022-07-15