Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35146543›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2022

Clinical assessment of tibial torsion differences. Do we always need a computed tomography?

Humam Hawi, Till Frederik Kaireit, Christian Krettek, Emmanouil Liodakis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Effect of tibial rotation on knee and ankle function in patients with extra-articular distal tibial fractures after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis treatment].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Humam HawiTrauma Department of the Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. humam.hawi@gmail.com.
Till Frederik KaireitDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Christian KrettekTrauma Department of the Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Emmanouil LiodakisTrauma Department of the Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTibial torsional malalignment presents a well-known complication of intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. PURPOSE: Objective of this study was to investigate the ability to clinically assess tibial torsion differences. Computed Tomography (CT) was used here as the gold standard. Further, intra- and inter-observer reliability of the clinical examination, and radiological measurements were calculated.

methodsFifty-one patients with torsion-difference CTs, obtained for various reasons, were asked to kneel on an examination couch with free hanging feet. All patients are positioned with 90° flexed knee and neutral ankle. A picture of the lower extremities was obtained from the back of the patient. Two blinded orthopedic surgeons were asked to look at the pictures and measure the tibial torsion with a digital goniometer, based on the axis of the femur in relation to the second ray of the foot. To determine the intra-observer variation, the torsional angles were calculated again after 4 weeks. To be able to compare values, two blinded radiologists calculated torsional differences based on computed tomography.

resultsAll patients were able to be positioned for clinical assessment (n = 51). Clinical assessment of torsional difference revealed 4.55° ± 6.85 for the first, respectively, 4.55° ± 7.41 for the second investigator. The second measurement of the first investigator revealed a value of 4.57° ± 6.9. There was a good intra-observer agreement for clinical assessment (ICC 0.993, p < 0.001). Also, the inter-observer agreement showed a good inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.949, p < 0.001). Evaluation of radiological inter-observer assessment could also show a good inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.922, p < 0.001). The clinical method showed a good correlation to the CT method (0.839, p < 0.001). Additionally, the Bland-Altman plot was used to compare graphically both measurement techniques, which proved the agreement.

conclusionIn summary, computed tomography-assisted measurement of tibial torsion and clinical assessment correlated significantly good. In addition to that, clinical measurement has a good intra- and inter-observer reliability. Clinical examination is a reliable and cost-effective tool to detect mal-torsion and should be part of the repertoire of every surgeon.

Indexed as

Tibial FracturesTomography, X-Ray ComputedFemurHumansReproducibility of ResultsTibiaTorsion AbnormalityClinical examComputed tomographyReliabilityTibial torsion

Identifiers

PMID35146543
PMCPMC9360086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.