• J Pediatr Orthop · Oct 2011

    Reliability and necessity of computerized tomography in distal tibial physeal injuries.

    • Dinesh Thawrani, Victoria Kuester, Peter G Gabos, Richard W Kruse, Aaron G Littleton, Kenneth J Rogers, Laurens Holmes, and Mihir M Thacker.
    • Department of Orthopedics, Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Nemours Children's Clinic, Wilmington, DE 19899, USA.
    • J Pediatr Orthop. 2011 Oct 1; 31 (7): 745-50.

    ObjectiveComplex distal tibial physeal fractures can be difficult to characterize on plain radiographs. The role of computed tomography (CT) scans in the evaluation and treatment decision of these injuries is unclear. We aimed to determine whether or not the addition of CT would improve the reliability of fracture classification and treatment decision.MethodsFive independent observers evaluated 50 distal tibial physeal fractures on 2 separate occasions for Salter Harris (SH) classification and treatment decision (surgical/nonsurgical) using plain radiographs (round 1) and combination of radiographs and CT (round 2). During round 1, observers were asked if they would order a CT, and during round 2, they were asked if the CT was useful. These rounds were repeated at 2 to 4 weeks to assess intraobserver reliability. Statistical analyses were performed to assess inter and intraobserver reliability using Kappa coefficient (κ).ResultsIntraobserver reliability for SH classification showed substantial agreement, κ=0.76 and κ=0.80, respectively, during round 1 and 2. Interobserver agreement on the SH class was lower during round 1 and 2 (κ=0.67 and κ=0.57, respectively). There also was almost perfect intraobserver and interobserver agreement in the measurement of displacement at the fracture site during both rounds 1 and 2. Intraobserver reliability for treatment decision was substantial, κ=0.74 and κ=0.80, respectively, during round 1 and 2. However, interobserver agreement for treatment decision was moderate (κ=0.48) and fair (κ=0.36), respectively, during round 1 and 2. Surgeons indicated that they would like to order CT scans for 66% of the time in round 1, but the interobserver agreement as to who would best benefit from the CT was only fair (κ=-0.23). The main purpose of ordering the CT was to delineate fracture anatomy (55% of the time) and the observers felt CT would add to their treatment decision only 26% of the time. During round 2, 75% of time surgeons felt that CT scan was useful. CT was thought to be most useful in guiding screw placement (56% of the time) and not as useful (28% of time) for treatment decision making.ConclusionsAddition of CT in complex distal tibial physeal fractures did not increase interobserver reliability to classify the fracture or the treatment decision. Surgeons reported that the CT was most useful to plan screw placement and changed their treatment decision in about a fifth of the cases.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…