ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of common peroneal nerve injury in acute and subacute posterolateral corner lesion: a retrospective study.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate qualitative and quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) criteria for injury of the common peroneal nerve (CPN) in patients with acute or subacute injuries in the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee, as well as to evaluate the reproducibility of MRI evaluation of CPN alterations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study of 38 consecutive patients submitted to MRI and diagnosed with acute or subacute injury to the PLC of the knee (patient group) and 38 patients with normal MRI results (control group). Two musculoskeletal radiologists (designated radiologist A and radiologist B, respectively) evaluated the images. Nerve injury was classified as neurapraxia, axonotmesis, or neurotmesis. Signal strength was measured at the CPN, the tibial nerve (TN), and a superficial vein (SV). The CPN/TN and CPN/SV signal ratios were calculated. The status of each PLC structure, including the popliteal tendon, arcuate ligament, lateral collateral ligament, and biceps tendon, was classified as normal, partially torn, or completely torn, as was that of the cruciate ligaments. For the semiquantitative analysis of interobserver agreement, the kappa statistic was calculated, whereas a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used for the quantitative analysis.
resultsIn the patient group, radiologist A found CPN abnormalities in 15 cases (39.4%)-neurapraxia in eight and axonotmesis in seven-whereas radiologist B found CPN abnormalities in 14 (36.8%)-neurapraxia in nine and axonotmesis in five. The kappa statistic showed excellent interobserver agreement. In the control group, the CPN/TN signal ratio ranged from 0.63 to 1.1 and the CPN/SV signal ratio ranged from 0.16 to 0.41, compared with 1.30-4.02 and 0.27-1.08, respectively, in the patient group. The ROC curve analysis demonstrated that the CPN/TN signal ratio at a cutoff value of 1.39 had high (93.3%) specificity for the identification of nerve damage, compared with 81.3% for the CPN/SV signal ratio at a cutoff value of 0.41.
conclusionCPN alterations are common in patients with PLC injury detected on MRI, and the level of interobserver agreement for such alterations was excellent. Calculating the CPN/TN and CPN/SV signal ratios may increase diagnostic confidence. We recommend systematic analysis of the CPN in cases of PLC injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.