-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
results.tex
59 lines (56 loc) · 2.7 KB
/
results.tex
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.2\linewidth}|p{0.2\linewidth}|p{0.2\linewidth}|} \hline
Method & Mean Version & Standard Deviation \\ \hline
Two Planes & 8.9\degree & 4.7\degree \\
Corrected Friedman & 8.4\degree & 6.5\degree \\
Friedman & 9.4\degree & 7.4\degree \\
Vault & 12.3\degree & 7.7\degree \\
Commercial software & 9.9\degree & 6.1\degree \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{tab:results}A comparison of the results of each method tested
on 10 retrospective patients}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:results} presents the results of using \sksglenoid on 10 patients.
The version measured using the planes method has a mean glenoid
version of 8.9\degree (SD, 4.7\degree; range, 5\degree to 20.9\degree),
while mean glenoid version
for the 3D corrected Friedman method
was 8.4\degree (SD, 6.5\degree; range, -4.0\degree to 16.9\degree).
For the 2D methods, the mean glenoid version for the
Friedman method was 9.4\degree (SD, 7.4\degree; range, -0.7\degree to 24\degree)
and for the vault model was 12.3\degree (SD, 7.7\degree; range, 4\degree to 26\degree).
In this
case a positive value indicates retroversion while a negative value indicates anteversion of the
glenoid. Overall, the 3D methods resulted in both lower mean version values as well as lower
variability, while the 2D methods revealed a slightly higher variability.
The measurements using these methods were also compared with version measurements on the same
10 patients using a commercial software\cite{djosurgical}.
The planes method (r = 0.90, p = 0.0004),
corrected Friedman method (r = 0.83, p = 0.0034),
and conventional Friedman method (r = 0.79, p = 0.0064)
all showed significant correlation with the commercial software.
The vault method did not show significant correlation (r = 0.59, p = 0.074).
The mean difference between the methods were overall not significant ($\rm{p} > 0.05$),
except for the vault method (p = 0.03). Correlation plots are shown in Figure \ref{fig:correl}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.30\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/planes.png}
\caption{Two Planes Method}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.30\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/correctedfried.png}
\caption{Corrected Friedman Method}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.30\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/friedman.png}
\caption{Friedman Method}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\label{fig:correl}The Pearson correlation between the commercial software and the 3 methods that gave a statistically significant result.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}