Literature DB >> 8665290

Reliability of radiographic assessment of acromial morphology.

S R Jacobson1, K P Speer, J T Moor, D H Janda, S R Saddemi, P B MacDonald, W J Mallon.   

Abstract

The most widely used radiographic classification system for acromial morphology identifies three distinct acromial shapes: type I (flat), type II (curved), and type III (hooked). The purpose of this study was to measure the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of determinations of acromial morphology as defined by this system. Between 1990 and 1992, one hundred twenty-six supraspinatus outlet radiographs were obtained from 126 patients by technicians from Triangle Orthopaedic Associates in Durham, N.C. Six fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons independently reviewed each radiograph and classified it as type I, II, or III on the basis of established guidelines. Two surgeons classified each film a second time in random order. Analysis of variance was performed to obtain coefficients for interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Consensus ratings were then used to classify the 126 radiographs into consensus type I, consensus type II, or consensus type III groups. Percentages of type I, II, and III individual ratings within each consensus group were determined. The intraobserver reliability coefficient was 0.888, interpreted as good to excellent reliability. The interobserver reliability coefficient was 0.516, interpreted as poor to fair reliability. Of the 126 radiographs, 26 (20.6%) were rated as consensus type I, 76 (60.3%) were rated as consensus type II, and 24 (19.1%) were rated as consensus type III. The reliability of observer ratings was lowest when delineation between acromial types II and III was required. The low interobserver reliability makes comparisons of studies by different authors difficult to interpret and obscures the true incidence of acromial morphologic types. It also questions reported correlations between acromial type and shoulder pathologic conditions. It is concluded that a system that incorporates more objective classification criteria and acknowledges the continuous nature of acromial morphologic types may improve interobserver reliability and validate the system's use in making clinical and surgical judgments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8665290     DOI: 10.1016/s1058-2746(05)80037-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  9 in total

1.  Clinical Faceoff: What is the Role of Acromioplasty in the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease?

Authors:  Edward G McFarland; Frederick A Matsen; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Relationship of radiographic acromial characteristics and rotator cuff disease: a prospective investigation of clinical, radiographic, and sonographic findings.

Authors:  Nady Hamid; Reza Omid; Ken Yamaguchi; Karen Steger-May; Georgia Stobbs; Jay D Keener
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Reliability of determining and measuring acromial enthesophytes.

Authors:  Keith M Baumgarten; James L Carey; Joseph A Abboud; Grant L Jones; John E Kuhn; Brian R Wolf; Robert H Brophy; Charles L Cox; Rick W Wright; Armando F Vidal; C Benjamin Ma; Eric C McCarty; G Brian Holloway; Edwin E Spencer; Warren R Dunn
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2011-07-13

4.  Impingement is not impingement: the case for calling it "Rotator Cuff Disease".

Authors:  Edward G McFarland; Nicola Maffulli; Angelo Del Buono; George A C Murrell; Juan Garzon-Muvdi; Steve A Petersen
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2013-08-11

5.  Study protocol subacromial impingement syndrome: the identification of pathophysiologic mechanisms (SISTIM).

Authors:  Pieter Bas de Witte; Jochem Nagels; Ewoud R A van Arkel; Cornelis P J Visser; Rob G H H Nelissen; Jurriaan H de Groot
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Translation of the humeral head scale is associated with success of rotator cuff repair for large-massive tears.

Authors:  Noboru Taniguchi; Darryl D D'Lima; Naoki Suenaga; Yasuyuki Ishida; Deokcheol Lee; Isoya Goya; Etsuo Chosa
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Morphological classification of acromial spur: correlation between Rockwood tilt view and arthroscopic finding.

Authors:  Pinkawas Kongmalai; Adinun Apivatgaroon; Bancha Chernchujit
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2017-01-11

8.  Evaluation of acromial spur using ultrasonography.

Authors:  Hyungsuk Kim; Syungkyun Choi; Soo Bin Park; Hyun Seok Song
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2021-02-18

9.  ASSOCIATION CLINICAL-RADIOGRAPHIC OF THE ACROMION ÍNDEX AND THE LATERAL ACROMION ANGLE.

Authors:  Flavio Amado Hanciau; Marcos André Mendes da Silva; Felipe Silveira Martins; Alexandre Ogliari
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2015-11-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.