Literature DB >> 3372194

Determination of leg length discrepancy. A comparison of weight-bearing and supine imaging.

R H Cleveland1, D C Kushner, M C Ogden, T E Herman, W Kermond, J A Correia.   

Abstract

Leg length discrepancy (LLD) may be determined by comparison of leg (lower extremity) lengths measured during physical examination or by radiographic means. Leg lengths may be measured with the patient in standing, weight-bearing position or in supine position. We used a low dose digital radiographic unit to test the hypothesis that there is a difference in LLD determined from radiographs obtained with the patient standing and those obtained with the patient supine. Conventional physical examination measurements also were compared with the radiographic measurements. The amount of LLD that is clinically meaningful has not been established, although 10 to 12 mm has been used as a threshold difference of clinical meaningfulness in the past. Analysis of our data, using 10 mm as the threshold of difference, reveals high level correlation by linear regression analysis and no significant difference by t-test between measurements obtained from standing and supine radiographs. A weak correlation and statistical difference existed between each set of radiographic measurements and physical examination measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3372194     DOI: 10.1097/00004424-198804000-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  9 in total

1.  Heuristic exploration of how leg checking procedures may lead to inappropriate sacroiliac clinical interventions.

Authors:  Robert Cooperstein
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2010-09

2.  Leg length discrepancy in total hip arthroplasty: comparison of two methods of measurement.

Authors:  Arkan S Sayed-Noor; Anders Hugo; Göran O Sjödén; Per Wretenberg
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-08-02       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy.

Authors:  Sanjeev Sabharwal; Ajay Kumar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Measurement of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. The reliability of a plain radiographic method compared to CT-scanogram.

Authors:  Martin Kjellberg; Bariq Al-Amiry; Erling Englund; Göran O Sjödén; Arkan S Sayed-Noor
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-04-14       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance.

Authors:  Gary A Knutson
Journal:  Chiropr Osteopat       Date:  2005-07-20

6.  Normative 3D opto-electronic stereo-photogrammetric posture and spine morphology data in young healthy adult population.

Authors:  Moreno D'Amico; Edyta Kinel; Piero Roncoletta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Leg Length Discrepancy and Nonspecific Low Back Pain: 3-D Stereophotogrammetric Quantitative Posture Evaluation Confirms Positive Effects of Customized Heel-Lift Orthotics.

Authors:  Moreno D'Amico; Edyta Kinel; Piero Roncoletta
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-02-10

8.  Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice.

Authors:  Martin Alfuth; Patrick Fichter; Axel Knicker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  An MRI-based technique for assessment of lower extremity deformities-reproducibility, accuracy, and clinical application.

Authors:  Stefan Hinterwimmer; Heiko Graichen; Thomas J Vogl; Nasreddin Abolmaali
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 7.034

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.