Literature DB >> 12934218

A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery.

Charles Gozzard1, Ashley Blom, A Taylor, Evert Smith, Ian Learmonth.   

Abstract

Three femoral (Paprosky, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [AAOS], and Endo-Klinik) and 2 acetabular (Paprosky, AAOS) bone stock loss classification systems were evaluated for reliability. Four observers (2 consultants, 2 registrars) graded the bone loss in 25 patients using preoperative radiographs. Grading was repeated after a minimum of 2 weeks. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was investigated. The kappa statistic was used to assess levels of agreement. Intraobserver agreement ranged from poor to good. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to moderate. The validity of the Paprosky classification system was evaluated, comparing preoperative bone stock loss assessment with intraoperative findings. Agreement levels of moderate (femoral classification system) to good (acetabular classification system) were achieved. Bone stock loss classification systems are shown to be inconsistent and unreliable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12934218     DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(03)00107-4

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


  24 in total

1.  [Replacement of femoral hip prostheses].

Authors:  M Rudert; M Hoberg; P M Prodinger; R Gradinger; B M Holzapfel
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.955

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

3.  Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs.

Authors:  Corey J Richards; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  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

5.  Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures.

Authors:  Toby Jennison; Abdulla Jawed; Ahmed ElBakoury; Hazem Hosny; Rathan Yarlagadda
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-03-18

6.  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

7.  Reliability and validity of the Hartofilakidis classification system of congenital hip disease in adults.

Authors:  C K Yiannakopoulos; T Xenakis; T Karachalios; G C Babis; G Hartofilakidis
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-11-06       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Outcomes of isolated acetabular revision.

Authors:  Bryan M Lawless; William L Healy; Sanjeev Sharma; Richard Iorio
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  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

10.  Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute.

Authors:  Ashley W Blom; Vikki Wylde; Christine Livesey; Michael R Whitehouse; Steve Eastaugh-Waring; Gordon C Bannister; Ian D Learmonth
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.