Guang H Yim1, Joseph T Hardwicke2,3. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Coventry, Coventry, United Kingdom. 3. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Gustilo classification is the most established system for classifying open fractures. Despite this, the classification has changed in how it has been described and interpreted. We have traced how this classification has slowly evolved throughout the literature over the past 4 decades. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was undertaken with the MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases to source relevant articles that have evolved the interpretation of the Gustilo classification. The references from these articles were consecutively hand-searched to find other articles that describe the Gustilo classification. RESULTS: There was a total of 393 results from the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS): 95 from MEDLINE, 49 from Embase, and 249 from PubMed. Fifty-six articles were initially selected; an additional 67 articles were retrieved through reference checking and further checking of relevant articles until no additional relevant articles could be found. CONCLUSIONS: The original Gustilo and Anderson classification initially was modified by Gustilo before subtle changes were made to the descriptors in the 1990s. Some authors have used the Gustilo classification to create alternative classifications, but these have not gained traction. Other contemporaneous literature has modified the Gustilo-IIIB subtypes to better stratify functional and reconstructive outcomes following vascular injury. The impact and longevity of such recent modifications are yet to be known.
BACKGROUND: The Gustilo classification is the most established system for classifying open fractures. Despite this, the classification has changed in how it has been described and interpreted. We have traced how this classification has slowly evolved throughout the literature over the past 4 decades. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was undertaken with the MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases to source relevant articles that have evolved the interpretation of the Gustilo classification. The references from these articles were consecutively hand-searched to find other articles that describe the Gustilo classification. RESULTS: There was a total of 393 results from the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS): 95 from MEDLINE, 49 from Embase, and 249 from PubMed. Fifty-six articles were initially selected; an additional 67 articles were retrieved through reference checking and further checking of relevant articles until no additional relevant articles could be found. CONCLUSIONS: The original Gustilo and Anderson classification initially was modified by Gustilo before subtle changes were made to the descriptors in the 1990s. Some authors have used the Gustilo classification to create alternative classifications, but these have not gained traction. Other contemporaneous literature has modified the Gustilo-IIIB subtypes to better stratify functional and reconstructive outcomes following vascular injury. The impact and longevity of such recent modifications are yet to be known.
Authors: Paul Hagebusch; Daniel Anthony Koch; Philipp Faul; Yves Gramlich; Reinhard Hoffmann; Alexander Klug Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 2.928