Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 5/2019

18.03.2019 | Original Article • HIP & KNEE - FRACTURES

Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures

verfasst von: Toby Jennison, Abdulla Jawed, Ahmed ElBakoury, Hazem Hosny, Rathan Yarlagadda

Erschienen in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Ausgabe 5/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

An interprosthetic fracture occurs between a hip and knee arthroplasty. There is currently no universally agreed classification. The aim of this study was to determine the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the most commonly used interprosthetic fracture classifications.

Methods

Nineteen interprosthetic fractures were classified by four reviewers for inter- and intraobserver reliability. The most commonly used interprosthetic fracture classifications were the Soenen classification, Platzer classification, and Pires classification. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was calculated.

Results

A moderate interobserver reliability was found for all the classification systems. The Platzer classification had a kappa value of 0.586, the Pires classification 0.499, and Soenen classification 0.489. The intraobserver error was 0.767 for the Platzer classification (substantial agreement), 0.636 for the Pires classification (substantial agreement), and 0.318 for the Soenen classification (fair agreement).

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated moderate interobserver reliability and substantial intraobserver reliability for both the Platzer and Pires classifications. This paper would recommend the use of either classification for interprosthetic fractures.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Sidler-Maier CC, Waddell JP (2015) Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop 39(9):1673–1682PubMedCrossRef Sidler-Maier CC, Waddell JP (2015) Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop 39(9):1673–1682PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Drew JM, Grif WL, Odum SM, Van Doren B, Weston BT, Stryker LS (2016) Survivorship after periprosthetic femur fracture: factors affecting outcome. J Arthroplasty 31:1283–1288PubMedCrossRef Drew JM, Grif WL, Odum SM, Van Doren B, Weston BT, Stryker LS (2016) Survivorship after periprosthetic femur fracture: factors affecting outcome. J Arthroplasty 31:1283–1288PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Abdel MP, Cottino U, Mabry TM (2015) Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 39(10):2005–2010PubMedCrossRef Abdel MP, Cottino U, Mabry TM (2015) Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 39(10):2005–2010PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Solarino G, Vicenti G, Moretti L, Abate A, Spinarelli A, Moretti B (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures—a challenge of treatment. A Syst Rev Lit Inj 45(2):362–368 Solarino G, Vicenti G, Moretti L, Abate A, Spinarelli A, Moretti B (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures—a challenge of treatment. A Syst Rev Lit Inj 45(2):362–368
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Scolaro JA, Schwarzkopf R (2017) Management of interprosthetic femur fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25(4):e63–e69PubMedCrossRef Scolaro JA, Schwarzkopf R (2017) Management of interprosthetic femur fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25(4):e63–e69PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Soenen M, Migaud H, Bonnomet F, Girard J, Mathevon H, Ehlinger M (2011) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: analysis of 14 cases. Proposal for an additional grade in the Vancouver and SoFCOT classifications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(7):693–698PubMedCrossRef Soenen M, Migaud H, Bonnomet F, Girard J, Mathevon H, Ehlinger M (2011) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: analysis of 14 cases. Proposal for an additional grade in the Vancouver and SoFCOT classifications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(7):693–698PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Fink B, Fuerst M, Singer J (2005) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur associated with hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(7):433–442PubMedCrossRef Fink B, Fuerst M, Singer J (2005) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur associated with hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(7):433–442PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Pires RE, de Toledo Lourenço PR, Labronici PJ, da Rocha LR, Balbachevsky D, Cavalcante FR, de Andrade MA (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: proposed new classification system and treatment algorithm. Injury 45(Suppl 5):S2–S6PubMedCrossRef Pires RE, de Toledo Lourenço PR, Labronici PJ, da Rocha LR, Balbachevsky D, Cavalcante FR, de Andrade MA (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: proposed new classification system and treatment algorithm. Injury 45(Suppl 5):S2–S6PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Platzer P, Schuster R, Luxl M, Widhalm HK, Eipeldauer S, Krusche-Mandl I, Ostermann R, Blutsch B, Vécsei V (2011) Management and outcome of interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 42(11):1219–1225PubMedCrossRef Platzer P, Schuster R, Luxl M, Widhalm HK, Eipeldauer S, Krusche-Mandl I, Ostermann R, Blutsch B, Vécsei V (2011) Management and outcome of interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 42(11):1219–1225PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Pires RES, Silveira MPS, Resende ARDS, Junior EOS, Campos TVO, Santos LEN, Balbachevsky D, Andrade MAP (2017) Validation of a new classification system for interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 48(7):388–1392CrossRef Pires RES, Silveira MPS, Resende ARDS, Junior EOS, Campos TVO, Santos LEN, Balbachevsky D, Andrade MAP (2017) Validation of a new classification system for interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 48(7):388–1392CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I (2003) A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty 18(5):638–642PubMedCrossRef Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I (2003) A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty 18(5):638–642PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures
verfasst von
Toby Jennison
Abdulla Jawed
Ahmed ElBakoury
Hazem Hosny
Rathan Yarlagadda
Publikationsdatum
18.03.2019
Verlag
Springer Paris
Erschienen in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Ausgabe 5/2019
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02393-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2019

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 5/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.