ArticleScientific reports2025
Consistency of 3D reconstruction measurements of lower limb torsion at different segments with the CT gold standard.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Determining the Origin of Deformity in Torsional Femoral Pathology: A Narrative Review and an Illustrative Pilot Study of a Novel Methodology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the agreement between lower limb segmental torsion measurements obtained via three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction and conventional two-dimensional (2D) CT cross-sections, and to evaluate the reliability and repeatability of 3D model in the measurement of femoral and tibial torsion angle. By verifying the comparison results of 3D measurement method and 2D gold standard, the applicability of 3D measurement method in clinical diagnosis was analyzed, which provided data support for the evaluation of lower limb torsion angle in patients with Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). The CT scan data of lower limbs of 80 patients (56 females, 24 males) diagnosed with PFPS in our hospital from August 2022 to July 2024 were collected. The age range of patients was 10 to 79 years old (average 54 years old). All patients underwent CT plain scan of bilateral lower extremity three joints (hip-knee-ankle) fixation. The scan data were used for the measurement and analysis of 2D and 3D torsion angles. According to the Seitlinger method and Winkler method, the femoral anteversion angle and tibial torsion angle were measured in 2D segments. Mimics software was used to construct a three-dimensional model of the hip, knee and ankle of the patient 's lower limbs. Referring to the previous measurement methods of Kim et al.and other researchers, the anatomical axis of each segment of the femur and tibia was defined by the three-dimensional model and the angle was calculated. The 3D model is generated by global threshold segmentation and regional growth to ensure the accurate identification of anatomical markers and the accuracy of axis drawing. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the inter-observer consistency of 2D and 3D measurement methods and the consistency between the two methods. Paired t test was used to compare the difference between the results of 2D and 3D methods, and the significance level was set to P < 0.05. For 2D measurements, inter-observer reliability was high, with ICC values (95% CI) for total femoral anteversion (TFA) and middle femoral anteversion (MFA) of 0.981 (95% CI 0.975-0.986) and 0.978 (95% CI 0.971-0.984), respectively. Proximal femoral anteversion (PFA) and distal femoral anteversion (DFA) had ICC values of 0.921 (95% CI 0.894-0.942) and 0.927 (95% CI 0.901-0.946), respectively. Total tibial torsion (TTT), proximal tibial torsion (PTT), and distal tibial torsion (DTT) showed ICC values of 0.940 (95% CI 0.918-0.955), 0.978 (95% CI 0.970-0.984), and 0.985 (95% CI 0.980-0.989), respectively.For 3D measurements, TFA and MFA had ICC values of 0.977 (95% CI 0.968-0.983) and 0.983 (95% CI 0.977-0.988), respectively, while PFA and DFA showed ICC values of 0.928 (95% CI 0.903-0.947) and 0.868 (95% CI 0.824-0.902). TTT, PTT, and DTT exhibited ICC values of 0.925 (95% CI 0.899-0.944), 0.971 (95% CI 0.961-0.979), and 0.981 (95% CI 0.974-0.986), respectively. Observer A's consistency results for 2D and 3D measurements indicated an ICC of 0.984 (95% CI 0.978-0.988) for TFA and 0.981 (95% CI 0.974-0.986) for MFA, with PFA and DFA having ICC values of 0.925 (95% CI 0.899-0.944) and 0.897 (95% CI 0.862-0.923), respectively. TTT, PTT, and DTT demonstrated ICC values of 0.947 (95% CI 0.929-0.961), 0.969 (95% CI 0.958-0.977), and 0.983 (95% CI 0.976-0.987), respectively. Observer B showed similar consistency, with ICC values of 0.979 (95% CI 0.972-0.985) for TFA and 0.985 (95% CI 0.980-0.989) for MFA, and ICC values of 0.916 (95% CI 0.887-0.938) and 0.888 (95% CI 0.850-0.917) for PFA and DFA, respectively. TTT, PTT, and DTT exhibited ICC values of 0.936 (95% CI 0.914-0.953), 0.965 (95% CI 0.953-0.974), and 0.986 (95% CI 0.981-0.990), respectively. Paired t-tests showed no statistically significant differences between 2D and 3D measurements for all major parameters (P > 0.05). Our findings confirm that 3D measurement methods exhibit high reliability and agreement with the CT gold standard. Given their ability to provide comprehensive segmental torsion analysis with lower observer dependence, 3D methods have strong potential to improve clinical decision-making in PFPS treatment and surgical planning.
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.