Literature DB >> 24612736

The inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of the Paprosky femoral bone loss classification system.

Nicholas M Brown1, Jared R H Foran2, Craig J Della Valle3, Mario Moric4, Scott M Sporer5, Brett R Levine5, Wayne G Paprosky5.   

Abstract

The Paprosky classification provides a straightforward algorithm for defining bone loss and directing treatment for femoral revision. The purpose of this study was to test the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of this system. Four arthroplasty surgeons reviewed radiographs of 205 consecutive femoral revisions. For each radiograph, the pattern of femoral bone loss was classified by Paprosky type on two separate occasions. A kappa value was used to calculate the reliability, which demonstrated an inter-observer reliability of 0.61, indicating substantial agreement between surgeons. The intra-observer reliability for each of the 4 participating surgeons was 0.81, 0.78, 0.76, and 0.75, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement. There is substantial agreement among experienced arthroplasty surgeons when using the Paprosky Classification to characterize femoral bone loss.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Paprosky femoral classification system; femoral bone loss; interobserver variation; intraobserver variation; revision hip arthroplasty; total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24612736     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.022

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Classifications In Brief: The Paprosky Classification of Femoral Bone Loss.

Authors:  David A Ibrahim; Navin D Fernando
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  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

3.  Humeral Bone Loss in Revision Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: the Proximal Humeral Arthroplasty Revision Osseous inSufficiency (PHAROS) Classification System.

Authors:  Peter N Chalmers; Anthony A Romeo; Gregory P Nicholson; Pascal Boileau; Jay D Keener; James M Gregory; Dane H Salazar; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Modular Cementless Stem Prostheses and Coated Cementless Long-Stem Prostheses on Bone Defect in Hip Revision Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Huibin Li; Fang Chen; Zhe Wang; Qian Chen
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-02-29

5.  Preoperative optimization for vascular involvement complicating revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Daniel Asemota; Brandon Passano; James E Feng; David Novikov; Afshin A Anoushiravani; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2018-03-21

Review 6.  The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium.

Authors:  Peter K Sculco; Timothy Wright; Michael-Alexander Malahias; Alexander Gu; Mathias Bostrom; Fares Haddad; Seth Jerabek; Michael Bolognesi; Thomas Fehring; Alejandro Gonzalez DellaValle; William Jiranek; William Walter; Wayne Paprosky; Donald Garbuz; Thomas Sculco
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-09-28

7.  Is the size of the acetabular bone lesion a predictive factor for failure in revisions of total hip arthroplasty using an impacted allograft?

Authors:  Rodrigo Pereira Guimarães; Alexandre Maris Yonamine; Carlos Eduardo Nunes Faria; Marco Rudelli
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2016-06-27
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.