Literature DB >> 27324664

The reliability and reproducibility of the Hertel classification for comminuted proximal humeral fractures compared with the Neer classification.

Gijs I T Iordens1, Kiran C Mahabier1, Florian E Buisman1, Niels W L Schep2, Galied S R Muradin3, Ludo F M Beenen4, Peter Patka5, Esther M M Van Lieshout1, Dennis Den Hartog6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Neer classification is the most commonly used fracture classification system for proximal humeral fractures. Inter- and intra-observer agreement is limited, especially for comminuted fractures. A possibly more straightforward and reliable classification system is the Hertel classification. The aim of this study was to compare the inter- and intra-observer variability of the Hertel with the Neer classification in comminuted proximal humeral fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four observers evaluated blinded radiographic images (X-rays, CT-scans, and CT-scans with 3D-reconstructions) of 60 patients. After at least two months classification was repeated.
RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement on plain X-rays was fair for both Hertel (κ = 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.62) and Neer (κ = 0.29; 0.09-0.42). Inter-observer agreement on CT-scans was substantial (κ = 0.63; 0.56-0.72) for Hertel and moderate for Neer (κ = 0.51; 0.29-0.68). Inter-observer agreement on 3D-reconstructions was moderate for both Hertel (κ = 0.60; 0.53-0.72) and Neer (κ = 0.51; 0.39-0.58). Intra-observer agreement on plain X-rays was fair for both Hertel (κ = 0.38; 0.27-0.59) and Neer (κ = 0.40; 0.15-0.52). Intra-observer agreement on CT-scans was moderate for both Hertel (κ = 0.50; 0.38-0.66) and Neer (κ = 0.42; 0.35-0.52). Intra-observer agreement on 3D-reconstructions was moderate for Hertel (κ = 0.55; 0.45-0.64) and substantial for Neer (κ = 0.63; 0.48-0.79).
CONCLUSIONS: The Hertel and Neer classifications showed a fair to substantial inter- and intra-observer agreement on the three diagnostic modalities used. Although inter-observer agreement was highest for Hertel classification on CT-scans, Neer classification had the highest intra-observer agreement on 3D-reconstructions. Data of this study do not confirm superiority of either classification system for the classification of comminuted proximal humeral fractures.
Copyright © 2016 The Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27324664     DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2016.05.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sci        ISSN: 0949-2658            Impact factor:   1.601


  14 in total

Review 1.  Imaging to improve agreement for proximal humeral fracture classification in adult patient: A systematic review of quantitative studies.

Authors:  Hannah Bougher; Archana Nagendiram; Jennifer Banks; Leanne Marie Hall; Clare Heal
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-06-26

2.  Classification of proximal humerus fractures according to pattern recognition is associated with high intraobserver and interobserver agreement.

Authors:  Antonio M Foruria; Natalia Martinez-Catalan; Belen Pardos; Dirk Larson; Jonathan Barlow; Joaquín Sanchez-Sotelo
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-04-22

3.  CORR Insights®: 3D-printed Handheld Models Do Not Improve Recognition of Specific Characteristics and Patterns of Three-part and Four-part Proximal Humerus Fractures.

Authors:  Konrad I Gruson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  The reliability of the Neer classification for proximal humerus fractures: a survey of orthopedic shoulder surgeons.

Authors:  Mikaël Chelli; Gregory Gasbarro; Vincent Lavoué; Marc-Olivier Gauci; Jean-Luc Raynier; Christophe Trojani; Pascal Boileau
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-02-26

5.  Grafting and fixation of proximal humeral aseptic non union: a prospective case series.

Authors:  Giuseppe Rollo; Roberto Rotini; Paolo Pichierri; Marco Giaracuni; Alessandro Stasi; Luca Macchiarola; Michele Bisaccia; Luigi Meccariello
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2017-12-27

6.  3D-printed Handheld Models Do Not Improve Recognition of Specific Characteristics and Patterns of Three-part and Four-part Proximal Humerus Fractures.

Authors:  Reinier W A Spek; Bram J A Schoolmeesters; Jacobien H F Oosterhoff; Job N Doornberg; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Ruurd L Jaarsma; Denise Eygendaal; Frank IJpma
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

7.  Inter-observer reliability of alternative diagnostic methods for proximal humerus fractures: a comparison between attending surgeons and orthopedic residents in training.

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

8.  Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of three-dimensionally printed models for the classification of proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Hannah Bougher; Petra Buttner; Jonathon Smith; Jennifer Banks; Hyun Su Na; David Forrestal; Clare Heal
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-12-15

9.  Intramedullary nail versus locking plate for treatment of proximal humeral fractures: A meta-analysis based on 1384 individuals.

Authors:  Ming Li; Yanhua Wang; Yupeng Zhang; Ming Yang; Peixun Zhang; Baoguo Jiang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 1.671

10.  Reproducibility of the modified Neer classification defining displacement with respect to the humeral head fragment for proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Noboru Matsumura; Ryogo Furuhata; Takayuki Seto; Yuhei Takada; Hideyuki Shirasawa; Satoshi Oki; Yusuke Kawano; Shohei Shiono
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.