Literature DB >> 11172275

Reliability of acetabular bone defect classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty.

D G Campbell1, D S Garbuz, B A Masri, C P Duncan.   

Abstract

Three classifications for assessment of acetabular bone loss were evaluated for their reliability. The 3 systems assessed were the system described by Gross, the system described by Paprosky, and the classification of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. In this study, we assessed their reliability based on the preoperative radiographs alone. Intraobserver agreement was measured by evaluating the classifications by the 3 innovators, 3 reconstructive orthopaedic surgeons, and 3 residents. Interobserver agreement was assessed among the reconstructive surgeons and the residents. The unweighted kappa statistic was used to establish levels of agreement. The innovators had better intraobserver agreement than the other 2 groups. Their agreement was only in the moderate range, however. For the noninnovators, intraobserver and interobserver agreement generally was poor for all 3 classifications assessed. Our results indicate that these classifications do not provide statistically reliable information for preoperative assessment of acetabular bone stock loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11172275     DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.19157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  21 in total

1.  [Mega cups and partial pelvic replacement].

Authors:  R von Eisenhart-Rothe; H Gollwitzer; A Toepfer; H Pilge; B M Holzapfel; H Rechl; R Gradinger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  Classifications in brief: Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss.

Authors:  Jessica J M Telleria; Albert O Gee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols.

Authors:  K Horas; J Arnholdt; A F Steinert; M Hoberg; M Rudert; B M Holzapfel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification.

Authors:  Raymond Yu; Jochen G Hofstaetter; Thomas Sullivan; Kerry Costi; Donald W Howie; Lucian B Solomon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  George W Fryhofer; Sireesh Ramesh; Neil P Sheth
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-12-02

6.  Reliability and Validity of Acetabular and Femoral Bone Loss Classification Systems in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alex Gu; Marco Adriani; Michael-Alexander Malahias; Safa C Fassihi; Allina A Nocon; Mathias P Bostrom; Peter K Sculco
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-06-18

7.  Advanced quantitative 3D imaging improves the reliability of the classification of acetabular defects.

Authors:  Alexander Meynen; Georges Vles; Mark Roussot; Anthony Van Eemeren; Hazem Wafa; Michiel Mulier; Lennart Scheys
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Acetabular reconstruction using a free fibular autograft in total hip arthroplasty revisions.

Authors:  Thibaut Noailles; Chiaki Tanaka; Francois Lintz; Sylvie Collon; Kevin Bargoin; Francois Gouin
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  [Acetabular reinforcement rings in revision total hip arthroplasty: midterm results in 298 cases].

Authors:  U J Schlegel; R G Bitsch; M Pritsch; P R Aldinger; H Mau; S J Breusch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 10.  Classification of hip joint infections.

Authors:  Konstantinos Anagnostakos; Nora Verena Schmid; Jens Kelm; Ulrich Grün; Jochen Jung
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 3.738

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.