Herbert Resch1, Mark Tauber2, Robert J Neviaser3, Andrew S Neviaser3, Addie Majed4, Tim Halsey5, Corinna Hirzinger1, Ghassan Al-Yassari6, Karol Zyto7, Philipp Moroder8. 1. Department of Traumatology and Sports Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 2. Department of Traumatology and Sports Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria; Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, ATOS Clinic, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Division of Surgery, Oncology, Reproductive Medicine, and Anaesthetics, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Division of Surgery, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Khoula Hospital, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. 7. Orthopedisk Center, Sophiahemmet Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. Department of Traumatology and Sports Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. Electronic address: philipp.moroder@pmu.ac.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze the pathomorphology of proximal humeral fractures to determine relevant and reliable parameters for fracture classification. METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive acute proximal humeral fractures in adult patients were analyzed by 2 non-independent observers from a single shoulder department using a standardized protocol based on biplane radiographs and 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. A fracture classification system based on the most reliable key features of the pathomorphologic analysis was created, and its reliability was tested by 6 independent shoulder experts analyzing another 100 consecutive proximal humeral fractures. RESULTS: The head position in relation to the shaft (varus, valgus, sagittal deformity) and the presence of tuberosity fractures showed a higher interobserver reliability (κ > 0.8) than measurements for medial hinge, shaft, and tuberosity displacement, metaphyseal extension, fracture impaction, as well as head-split component identification (κ < 0.7). These findings were used to classify nondisplaced proximal humeral fractures as type 1, fractures with normal coronal head position but sagittal deformity as type 2, valgus fractures as type 3, varus fractures as type 4, and fracture dislocations as type 5. The fracture type was further combined with the fractured main fragments (G for greater tuberosity, L for lesser). Interobserver and intraobserver reliability analysis for the fracture classification revealed a κ value (95% confidence interval) of 0.700 (0.631-0.767) and 0.917 (0.879-0.943), respectively. CONCLUSION: The new classification system with emphasis on the qualitative aspects of proximal humeral fractures showed high reliability when based on a standardized imaging protocol including computed tomography scans.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze the pathomorphology of proximal humeral fractures to determine relevant and reliable parameters for fracture classification. METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive acute proximal humeral fractures in adult patients were analyzed by 2 non-independent observers from a single shoulder department using a standardized protocol based on biplane radiographs and 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. A fracture classification system based on the most reliable key features of the pathomorphologic analysis was created, and its reliability was tested by 6 independent shoulder experts analyzing another 100 consecutive proximal humeral fractures. RESULTS: The head position in relation to the shaft (varus, valgus, sagittal deformity) and the presence of tuberosity fractures showed a higher interobserver reliability (κ > 0.8) than measurements for medial hinge, shaft, and tuberosity displacement, metaphyseal extension, fracture impaction, as well as head-split component identification (κ < 0.7). These findings were used to classify nondisplaced proximal humeral fractures as type 1, fractures with normal coronal head position but sagittal deformity as type 2, valgus fractures as type 3, varus fractures as type 4, and fracture dislocations as type 5. The fracture type was further combined with the fractured main fragments (G for greater tuberosity, L for lesser). Interobserver and intraobserver reliability analysis for the fracture classification revealed a κ value (95% confidence interval) of 0.700 (0.631-0.767) and 0.917 (0.879-0.943), respectively. CONCLUSION: The new classification system with emphasis on the qualitative aspects of proximal humeral fractures showed high reliability when based on a standardized imaging protocol including computed tomography scans.
Authors: Antonio M Foruria; Natalia Martinez-Catalan; Belen Pardos; Dirk Larson; Jonathan Barlow; Joaquín Sanchez-Sotelo Journal: JSES Int Date: 2022-04-22
Authors: Ivan Fadanelli Simionato; João Pedro Farina Brunelli; Marco Tonding Ferreira; Fabio Yoshihiro Matsumoto; Almiro Gerszon Britto; Fernando Carlos Mothes Journal: Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) Date: 2020-06-25
Authors: Luiz Fernando Cocco; João Alberto Yazzigi; Eduardo Felipe Kin Ito Kawakami; Helio Jorge Fernandes Alvachian; Fernando Baldy Dos Reis; Marcus Vinicius Malheiro Luzo Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2019-03-11
Authors: Rony-Orijit Dey Hazra; Johanna Illner; Karol Szewczyk; Mara Warnhoff; Alexander Ellwein; Robert Maximillian Blach; Helmut Lill; Gunnar Jensen Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 4.241