0
Articles   |    
The Accuracy and Reproducibility of Radiographic Assessment of Stress-Shielding A Postmortem Analysis*
C. Anderson EnghJr., M.D.†; James P. McAuley, M.D.†; Christi J. Sychterz, M.S.†; Marie E. Sacco, B.S.†; Charles A. Engh, Sr., M.D.†
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia
*One or more of the authors has received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.
†Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, 2501 Parkers Lane, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22306.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2000 Oct 01;82(10):1414-1414
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Although periprosthetic bone loss remains a major concern in total hip arthroplasty, radiographic assessment of such loss is both difficult and subjective. In the present study, we assessed the ability of orthopaedic surgeons to reproducibly recognize changes in periprosthetic bone density on radiographs. We hypothesized that assessment of periprosthetic bone loss on plain radiographs is not reliable enough to justify its use in outcomes research.

Methods: Twenty-nine unilateral total hip replacements and the surrounding bone were retrieved at autopsy, and radiographs were made; radiographs of the contralateral, normal femur were also made after implantation of an identical prosthesis and used as a control. Three orthopaedic surgeons independently examined the specimen radiographs and classified bone loss in each of sixteen femoral zones. Bone loss was recorded as present if the bone of the femur that had had in vivo implantation showed evidence of cortical thinning, increased porosity, or decreased density (either cortical or trabecular) when compared with the control femur. The kappa coefficient was used to quantify interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in determining bone loss for the 464 zones examined and in determining the Engh and Bobyn stress-shielding classification of each femur. In fourteen femoral pairs, bone loss was also quantified with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and the resulting value was then compared with the bone-loss classification that had been determined radiographically.

Results: First, the surgeons agreed on the presence or absence of bone loss in 73 percent (337) of the 464 zones. The interobserver kappa value of 0.58 denoted only good reproducibility. The intraobserver reproducibility was better; the surgeon's initial evaluation of bone loss agreed with his second evaluation for 90 percent of the zones (kappa = 0.74). Second, the three surgeons agreed on the degree of stress-shielding, according to the Engh and Bobyn classification, in 66 percent (nineteen) of the twenty-nine femora. The kappa value for this comparison was only 0.27, indicating marginal reproducibility. Third, although there was some agreement among reviewers when there was 20 to 60 percent reduction in bone-mineral content as determined with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, excellent agreement among the examiners (kappa = 0.85) was not achieved until bone loss averaged 70 percent.

Conclusions: On the basis of these results, we suggest caution in interpreting results from studies of femoral bone loss that have used plain radiographic analysis if the authors have not provided interobserver reliability data. We question the utility of evaluating periprosthetic bone loss on radiographs, since the loss is not reproducibly recognized until 70 percent of the bone is gone.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    05/03/2012
    CA - UCLA/OH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
    02/05/2014
    OR - The Center - Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Care and Research