AO Distal Radius Fracture Classification: Global Perspective on Observer Agreement

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The primary objective of this study was to test interobserver reliability when classifying fractures by consensus by AO types and groups among a large international group of surgeons. Secondarily, we assessed the difference in inter- and intraobserver agreement of the AO classification in relation to geographical location, level of training, and subspecialty.

Methods A randomized set of radiographic and computed tomographic images from a consecutive series of 96 distal radius fractures (DRFs), treated between October 2010 and April 2013, was classified using an electronic web-based portal by an invited group of participants on two occasions.

Results Interobserver reliability was substantial when classifying AO type A fractures but fair and moderate for type B and C fractures, respectively. No difference was observed by location, except for an apparent difference between participants from India and Australia classifying type B fractures. No statistically significant associations were observed comparing interobserver agreement by level of training and no differences were shown comparing subspecialties. Intra-rater reproducibility was “substantial” for fracture types and “fair” for fracture groups with no difference accounting for location, training level, or specialty.

Conclusion Improved definition of reliability and reproducibility of this classification may be achieved using large international groups of raters, empowering decision making on which system to utilize.

Level of Evidence Level III

Note

Prakash Jayakumar and Teun Teunis contributed equally to this work. This work was performed at the Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School.

• References

• 1 Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P. Classification AO des Fractures: Tome I: les os Longs. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1987. Part 2
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 2 Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J , et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21 (10, Suppl): S1-S133
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Müller ME, Koch P, Nazarin S , et al. Radius and ulna. In: Müller ME, Koch P, Nazarin S, et al., eds. The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1990: 106-115
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 4 Illarramendi A, González Della Valle A, Segal E, De Carli P, Maignon G, Gallucci G. Evaluation of simplified Frykman and AO classifications of fractures of the distal radius. Assessment of interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Int Orthop 1998; 22 (2) 111-115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Kreder HJ, Hanel DP, McKee M, Jupiter J, McGillivary G, Swiontkowski MF. Consistency of AO fracture classification for the distal radius. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78 (5) 726-731
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (2) 377-381
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (1) 159-174
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Trumble TE, Culp R, Hanel HP , et al. Instructional course lectures, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons—Intra-articular fractures of the distal aspect of the radius. J Bone Joint Surgery 1998; 80 (4) 582-600
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Flikkilä T, Nikkola-Sihto A, Kaarela O, Pääkkö E, Raatikainen T. Poor interobserver reliability of AO classification of fractures of the distal radius. Additional computed tomography is of minor value. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (4) 670-672
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kural C, Sungur I, Kaya I, Ugras A, Ertürk A, Cetinus E. Evaluation of the reliability of classification systems used for distal radius fractures. Orthopedics 2010; 33 (11) 801 DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20100924-14.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Belloti JC, Tamaoki MJ, Franciozi CE , et al. Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement. Sao Paulo Med J 2008; 126 (3) 180-185
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Ploegmakers JJ, Mader K, Pennig D, Verheyen CC. Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons. Injury 2007; 38 (11) 1268-1272
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Küçük L, Kumbaracı M, Günay H, Karapınar L, Ozdemir O. Reliability and reproducibility of classifications for distal radius fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2013; 47 (3) 153-157
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Jin WJ, Jiang LS, Shen L , et al. The interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Cooney classification of distal radius fractures between experienced orthopaedic surgeons. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2007; 32 (5) 509-511
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Andersen DJ, Blair WF, Steyers Jr CM, Adams BD, el-Khouri GY, Brandser EA. Classification of distal radius fractures: an analysis of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Hand Surg Am 1996; 21 (4) 574-582
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Siripakarn Y, Niempoog S, Boontanapibul K. The comparative study of reliability and reproducibility of distal radius' fracture classification among: AO Frykman and Fernandez classification systems. J Med Assoc Thai 2013; 96 (1) 52-57
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Arealis G, Galanopoulos I, Nikolaou VS, Lacon A, Ashwood N, Kitsis C. Does the CT improve inter- and intra-observer agreement for the AO, Fernandez and Universal classification systems for distal radius fractures?. Injury 2014; 45 (10) 1579-1584
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981: 217-218
  Google Scholar
• 19 Jupiter JB, Fernandez DL. Comparative classification for fractures of the distal end of the radius. J Hand Surg Am 1997; 22 (4) 563-571
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, Bellamy N, Roth JH, Hildebrand KA. Reliability of hand fellows' measurements and classifications from radiographs of distal radius fractures. Plastic Surgery 2001; 9 (2) 51-58
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Oskam J, Kingma J, Klasen HJ. Interrater reliability for the basic categories of the AO/ASIF's system as a frame of reference for classifying distal radial fractures. Percept Mot Skills 2001; 92 (2) 589-594
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 van Leerdam RH, Souer JS, Lindenhovius AL, Ring DC. Agreement between Initial Classification and Subsequent Reclassification of Fractures of the Distal Radius in a Prospective Cohort Study. Hand (NY) 2010; 5 (1) 68-71
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar