Literature DB >> 31977443

What Is the Accuracy and Reliability of the Peritubercle Lucency Sign on Radiographs for Early Diagnosis of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Compared With MRI as the Gold Standard?

Daniel A Maranho1,2,3, Sarah D Bixby4, Patricia E Miller1, Shayan Hosseinzadeh1, Michael George4, Young-Jo Kim1, Eduardo N Novais1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) often is delayed. Although lack of clinical suspicion is the main cause of delayed diagnosis, typical radiographic changes may not be present during the initial phases of SCFE. The peritubercle lucency sign for follow-up of the contralateral hip in patients with unilateral SCFE may be beneficial in assisting the early diagnosis. However, the accuracy and reliability of this sign in patients with SCFE is unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the peritubercle lucency sign on radiographs for the early diagnosis of SCFE compared with MRI as the gold standard? (2) What are the interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities of the peritubercle lucency sign on radiographs?
METHODS: Between 2000 and 2017, 71 patients underwent MRI for an evaluation of pre-slip or a minimally displaced SCFE. Sixty percent of hips (43 of 71) had confirmed SCFE or pre-slip based on the presence of hip pain and MRI changes, and these patients underwent in situ pinning. Three independent experienced observers reviewed MR images of the 71 hips and agreed on the presence of a juxtaphyseal bright-fluid signal suggesting bone marrow edema in these 43 hips with SCFE, and absence MRI changes in the remaining 28 hips. The same three experienced observers and two inexperienced observers, including a general radiologist and an orthopaedic surgery resident, blindly assessed the radiographs for the presence or absence of the peritubercle lucency sign, without information about the diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy measures including sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were evaluated. Intraobserver and interobserver agreements were calculated using kappa statistics.
RESULTS: The overall accuracy of the peritubercle lucency sign on radiographs was 94% (95% CI 91 to 96), sensitivity was 97% (95% CI 95 to 99), specificity was 89% (95% CI 90 to 96), PPV was 93% (95% CI 90 to 96), and NPV was 95% (95% CI 92 to 99). All accuracy parameters were greater than 85% for the five observers, regardless of experience level. Intraobserver agreement was perfect (kappa 1.0), and interobserver agreement was excellent for the peritubercle lucency sign on radiographs across the five observers (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.88]). The reliability was excellent for experienced observers (kappa 0.88 [95% CI 0.74 to 1.00]) and substantial for inexperienced observers (kappa 0.70 [95% CI 0.46 to 0.93]), although no difference was found with the numbers available (p = 0.18).
CONCLUSIONS: The peritubercle lucency sign on radiographs is accurate and reliable for the early diagnosis of SCFE compared with MRI as the gold standard. Improving the early diagnosis of SCFE may be possible with increased awareness, high clinical suspicion, and a scrutinized evaluation of radiographs including an assessment of the peritubercle lucency sign. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31977443      PMCID: PMC7170665          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.755


  38 in total

1.  MRI features of confirmed "pre-slip" capital femoral epiphysis: a report of two cases.

Authors:  A Lalaji; H Umans; R Schneider; D Mintz; M S Liebling; N Haramati
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2002-03-23       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Demographic predictors of severity of stable slipped capital femoral epiphyses.

Authors:  Randall T Loder; Trevor Starnes; Greg Dikos; David D Aronsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Consequences of diagnostic delays in slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

Authors:  Daniel Rahme; Andrew Comley; Bruce Foster; Peter Cundy
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop B       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Magnetic resonance imaging at primary diagnosis cannot predict subsequent contralateral slip in slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

Authors:  Anders Wensaas; Ola Wiig; Johan Castberg Hellund; Behzad Khoshnewiszadeh; Terje Terjesen
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 5.  Imaging SCFE: diagnosis, treatment and complications.

Authors:  Delma Y Jarrett; Travis Matheney; Paul K Kleinman
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2013-03-12

6.  Radiology in early slipped femoral capital epiphysis.

Authors:  T J Bloomberg; J Nuttall; D J Stoker
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 2.350

7.  Quality of evaluation and management of children requiring timely orthopaedic surgery before admission to a tertiary pediatric facility.

Authors:  David L Skaggs; Ashok K Roy; Michael G Vitale; Candice Pfiefer; Glenn Baird; Dominic Femino; Robert M Kay
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.324

8.  Delay in diagnosis of slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

Authors:  Mininder S Kocher; Julius A Bishop; Bryce Weed; M Timothy Hresko; Michael B Millis; Young Jo Kim; James R Kasser
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Radiology of adolescent slipped capital femoral epiphysis: measurement of epiphyseal angles and diagnosis.

Authors:  Jörg Gekeler
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.154

10.  MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING FOR DIAGNOSING THE PRE-SLIP STAGE OF THE CONTRALATERAL PROXIMAL FEMORAL EPIPHYSIS IN PATIENTS WITH UNILATERAL EPIPHYSIOLYSIS.

Authors:  Nei Botter Montenegro; Victor Fruges Junior; Riccardo Grinfeld; Marcelo Bordalo Rodrigues; Edgard Dos Santos Pereira; Carlos Gorios
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2015-11-17
View more
  6 in total

1.  Does the Capital Femoral Physis Bony MorphologyDiffer in Children with Symptomatic Cam-type Femoroacetabular Impingement.

Authors:  Shayan Hosseinzadeh; Eduardo N Novais; Alireza Emami; Gabriela Portilla; Daniel A Maranho; Young-Jo Kim; Ata M Kiapour
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  What Is the Association Among Epiphyseal Rotation, Translation, and the Morphology of the Epiphysis and Metaphysis in Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis?

Authors:  Eduardo N Novais; Shayan Hosseinzadeh; Seyed Alireza Emami; Daniel A Maranho; Young-Jo Kim; Ata M Kiapour
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  CORR Insights®: What is the Accuracy and Reliability of the Peritubercle Lucency Sign on Radiographs for Early Diagnosis of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Compared With MRI as the Gold Standard?

Authors:  Kit M Song
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Reply to the Letter to the Editor: What Is the Accuracy and Reliability of the Peritubercle Lucency Sign on Radiographs for Early Diagnosis of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Compared with MRI as the Gold Standard?

Authors:  Eduardo N Novais; Patricia E Miller
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Letter to the Editor: What Is the Accuracy and Reliability of the Peritubercle Lucency Sign on Radiographs for Early Diagnosis of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Compared with MRI as the Gold Standard?

Authors:  Hadis Ghajari; Siamak Sabour
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 6.  Slipped capital femoral epiphysis with hypopituitarism in adults: A case report and literature review.

Authors:  Zhixin Niu; Jinshuo Tang; Xianyue Shen; Shenghao Xu; Zhongsheng Zhou; Tong Liu; Jianlin Zuo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.