Key messages
-
The tibial torsions relevance in maltorsion of the lower extremity and respective surgical planning is underestimated.
-
So far, no real 3D measurement technique in sectional imaging was elaborated.
-
Our novel 3D measurement technique showed an excellent intraclass correlation.
Introduction
Material and methods
Patient selection
CT examinations and segmentation
3D measurement methods
2D measurement methods
Statistical analysis
Results
Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement 2D | Jakob method | Goutallier method |
---|---|---|
ICC (95% CI) | 0.917 (0.755–0.962) | 0.938 (0.905–0.959) |
Interobserver agreement 3D | 3D-TF | 3D-T |
---|---|---|
ICC (95% CI) | 0.954 (0.963–0.985) | 0.950 (0.924–0.968) |
Intermethod Agreement
Intermethod agreement | ICC (95% CI) | Mean value, t test |
---|---|---|
Jakob vs. Goutallier | 0.996 (0.994–0.998) | 30.1 vs. 24.1° (p < 0.001) MD: 5.9 ± 2.6° (range 0.3–12.7°) |
Jakob vs. 3D-TF | 0.783 (0.684–0.853) | 30.1 vs. 28.1° (p = 0.033) MD: 2.0 ± 8.5° (range − 23.5–24.6°) |
Jakob vs. 3D-T | 0.715 (0.481–0.834) | 30.1 vs. 25.2° (p < 0.001) MD: 4.9 ± 9.6° (range − 16.4–26.3°) |
Goutallier vs. 3D-TF | 0.795 (0.681–0.868) | 24.1 vs. 28.1 (p < 0.001) MD: − 3.9 ± 8.7° (range − 31.6–16.6°) |
Goutallier vs. 3D-T | 0.729 (0.581–0.825) | 24.1 vs. 25.2 (p = 0.348) − 1.0 ± 9.9° (range − 24.5–19.9°) |
3D-TF vs. 3D-T | 0.950 (0.860–0.977) | 28.1 vs. 25.2° (p < 0.001) MD: 2.9 ± 4.5° (range − 10.2–12.0°) |
Left vs. Right and Female vs. Male
Left vs. right | 2D | 3D |
---|---|---|
t test (p value) | 26.2 ± 8.2 vs. 28.5 ± 9.1° (p = 0.232) | 27.1 ± 12.8 vs. 25.8 ± 10.5° (p = 0.632) |
Male vs. female | 2D | 3D |
---|---|---|
t test | 26.2 ± 8.7 vs. 29.6 ± 8.0° (p = 0.115) | 25.0 ± 10.8 vs. 31.2 ± 13.7° (p = 0.036) |