Literature DB >> 25371459

Field testing the Unified Classification System for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur around a total hip replacement : an international collaboration.

M H Vioreanu1, M C Parry1, F S Haddad2, C P Duncan1.   

Abstract

The Unified Classification System (UCS) emphasises the key principles in the assessment and management of peri-prosthetic fractures complicating partial or total joint replacement. We tested the inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS as applied to the pelvis and femur using 20 examples of peri-prosthetic fracture in 17 patients. Each subtype of the UCS was represented by at least one case. Specialist orthopaedic surgeons (experts) and orthopaedic residents (pre-experts) assessed reliability on two separate occasions. For the pelvis, the UCS showed inter-observer agreement of 0.837 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.798 to 0.876) for the experts and 0.728 (95% CI 0.689 to 0.767) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement for the experts was 0.861 (95% CI 0.760 to 0.963) and 0.803 (95% 0.688 to 0.918) for the pre-experts. For the femur, the UCS showed an inter-observer kappa value of 0.805 (95% CI 0.765 to 0.845) for the experts and a value of 0.732 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.773) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement was 0.920 (95% CI 0.867 to 0.973) for the experts, and 0.772 (95% CI 0.652 to 0.892) for the pre-experts. This corresponds to a substantial and 'almost perfect' inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur. We hope that unifying the terminology of these injuries will assist in their assessment, treatment and outcome. ©2014 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Peri-prosthetic fractures; Classification System; Pelvis; Femur; Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25371459     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  6 in total

Review 1.  Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and current treatment.

Authors:  Antonio Capone; Stefano Congia; Roberto Civinini; Giuseppe Marongiu
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2017-10-25

2.  New fracture pattern focusing on implant fracture for periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Authors:  Jie-Feng Huang; Jian-Jian Shen; Jun-Jie Chen; Yang Zheng; Wen-Xi Du; Fu-Cun Liu; Pei-Jian Tong
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  [Periprosthetic fractures following total hip and knee arthroplasty: Risk factors, epidemiological aspects, diagnostics and classification systems].

Authors:  M Fuchs; C Perka; P von Roth
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  Low rate of early periprosthetic fractures in cementless short-stem total hip arthroplasty using a minimally invasive anterolateral approach.

Authors:  Matthias Luger; Günter Hipmair; Clemens Schopper; Bernhard Schauer; Rainer Hochgatterer; Jakob Allerstorfer; Tobias Gotterbarm; Antonio Klasan
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2021-05-21

5.  Concepts and Potential Future Developments for Treatment of Periprosthetic Proximal Femoral Fractures.

Authors:  Stephan Brand; Max Ettinger; Mohamed Omar; Nael Hawi; Christian Krettek; Maximilian Petri
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2015-08-31

6.  The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review.

Authors:  Clemens Schopper; Matthias Luger; Günter Hipmair; Bernhard Schauer; Tobias Gotterbarm; Antonio Klasan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.