Table 2.

Comparison of reliabilities expressed as ICCs (intraclass correlation coefficient) between the three imaging modalities and anatomical versus surgical angles using Fisher z-transformation. A direction was given (>) for p values of p < 0.1. R1, 2; rater 1 and 2. Statistically significant p-values are shown in italics

Value 1	ICC	Value 2	ICC	z	Direction	p
Intrarater reliability (Kanekasu vs. 2D-CT)
Kanekasu surg. R1	0.72	2D CT surg. R1	0.87	2.67	2D > Kanekasu	0.004
Kanekasu anat. R1	0.85	2D CT anat. R1	0.92	2.09	2D > Kanekasu	0.018
Kanekasu surg. R2	0.92	2D CT surg. R2	0.86	1.86	Kanekasu >2D	0.031
Kanekasu anat. R2	0.90	2D CT anat. R2	0.85	1.12	=	0.130
Intrarater reliability (surg. vs. anat.)
Kanekasu surg. R1	0.72	Kanekasu anat. R1	0.85	2.19	anat. > surg.	0.014
2D CT surg. R1	0.87	2D CT anat. R1	0.92	1.34	anat. > surg.	0.054
Kanekasu surg. R2	0.92	Kanekasu anat. R2	0.90	0.73	=	0.231
2D CT surg. R2	0.86	2D CT anat. R2	0.85	0.23	=	0.408
Intrarater reliability (R1 vs. R2)
Kanekasu surg. R1	0.72	Kanekasu surg. R2	0.92	4.28	R2 > R1	< 0.001
Kanekasu anat. R1	0.85	Kanekasu anat. R2	0.90	1.36	R2 > R1	0.087
2D CT surg. R1	0.87	2D CT surg. R2	0.86	0.25	=	0.401
2D CT anat. R1	0.92	2D CT anat. R2	0.85	2.09	R1 > R2	0.018
Interrater reliability (Kanekasu vs. 2D CT)
Kanekasu surg.	0.82	2D CT surg.	0.88	1.38	2D > Kanekasu	0.084
Kanekasu anat.	0.85	2D CT anat.	0.90	1.12	=	0.130
Interrater reliability (surg. vs. anat.)
Kanekasu surg.	0.82	Kanekasu anat.	0.85	0.62	=	0.266
2D CT surg.	0.88	2D CT anat.	0.90	0.61	=	0.272
Comparison with 3D (Kanekasu vs. 2D CT)
Kanekasu surg.	0.49	2D CT surg.	0.73	2.47	2D > Kanekasu	0.007
Kanekasu anat.	0.61	2D CT anat.	0.82	2.81	2D > Kanekasu	0.002
Comparison with 3D (surg. vs. anat.)
Kanekasu surg.	0.49	Kanekasu anat.	0.61	1.09	=	0.139
2D CT surg.	0.73	2D CT anat.	0.82	1.43	anat. > surg.	0.076