| Title |
Magnetic resonance imaging arthrography following type II superior labrum from anterior to posterior repair: interobserver and intraobserver reliability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oajsm.s79722 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hafeez M Kurji, Yohei Ono, Atiba A Nelson, Kristie D More, Ben Wong, Corinne Dyke, Richard S Boorman, Gail M Thornton, Ian KY Lo |
| Abstract |
Arthroscopic repair of type II superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions is a common surgical procedure. However, anatomic healing following repair has rarely been investigated. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability of magnetic resonance imaging arthrography (MRA) following type II SLAP repair has not previously been investigated. This is of particular interest due to recent reports of poor clinical results following type II SLAP lesion repair. To evaluate the MRA findings following arthroscopic type II SLAP lesion repair and determine its intraobserver and interobserver reliability. Cohort study (diagnosis), Level of Evidence, 2. Twenty-five patients with an isolated type II SLAP lesion (confirmed via diagnostic arthroscopy) underwent standard suture anchor-based repair. At a mean of 25.2 months post-operatively, patients underwent a standardized MRA protocol to investigate the integrity of the repair. MRAs were independently reviewed by two radiologists and a fellowship trained shoulder surgeon. The outcomes were classified as healed SLAP repair or re-torn SLAP repair. On average, 54% of MRAs were interpreted as healed SLAP repairs while 46% of MRAs were interpreted as having a re-torn SLAP repair. Overall, only 43% of the studies had 100% agreement across all interpretations. The intraobserver reliability ranged from 0.71 to 0.81 while the interobserver reliability between readers ranged from 0.13 to 0.44 (Table 1). The intraobserver agreement of MRA in the evaluation of type II SLAP repair was substantial to excellent. However, the interobserver agreement of MRA was poor to fair. As a result, the routine use of MRA in the evaluation of type II SLAP lesion repair should be utilized with caution. A global evaluation of the patient, including detailed history and physical examination, is paramount in determining the cause of failure and one should not rely on MRA alone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 40% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 30% |
| Engineering | 2 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,519,165
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#141
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,953
of 295,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.