Josephine Berger-Groch1, Darius M Thiesen2, Lars G Grossterlinden3, Jan Schaewel2, Florian Fensky2, Maximilian J Hartel2. 1. Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. j.berger@uke.de. 2. Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Trauma-and Spine Surgery, Asklepios Hospital Hamburg-Altona, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 1, 22763, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several different systems of classification have been developed to understand the complexity of pelvic ring fractures, to facilitate communication between physicians and to support the selection of appropriate therapeutic measures. The purpose of this study was to measure the inter- and intraobserver reliability of Tile AO, Young and Burgess, and FFP classification in pelvic ring fractures. The Rommens classification system (FFP) is analyzed for the first time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four reviewers (2 × senior pelvic trauma surgeon, 1 × resident, 1 × medical student) separately analyzed and classified 154 CT scans of patients with pelvic fracture. The Tile AO, the Young and Burgess, and the FFP classifications (subgroup with patients ≥ 60 years) were compared. Another blinded re-evaluation was carried out after 2 months to determine intraobserver reliability. RESULTS: The overall interobserver agreement was fair for all classification systems (ICC: OTA 0.55, Young and Burgess 0.42, FFP 0.54). For specific categories, (e.g. type B or C fractures), there was a substantial agreement between the experienced surgeons (kappa: OTA 0.64, Young and Burgess 0.62, FFP 0.68). For inexperienced observers, there was a fair agreement in all systems (kappa: OTA 0.23, Young and Burgess 0.23, FFP 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: All three classifications reach their maximum reliability with advanced expertise in the surgery of pelvic fractures. The novel FFP classification has proved to be at least equivalent when directly compared to the established systems. The FFP classification system showed substantial reliability in patients older than 60 years.
INTRODUCTION: Several different systems of classification have been developed to understand the complexity of pelvic ring fractures, to facilitate communication between physicians and to support the selection of appropriate therapeutic measures. The purpose of this study was to measure the inter- and intraobserver reliability of Tile AO, Young and Burgess, and FFP classification in pelvic ring fractures. The Rommens classification system (FFP) is analyzed for the first time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four reviewers (2 × senior pelvic trauma surgeon, 1 × resident, 1 × medical student) separately analyzed and classified 154 CT scans of patients with pelvic fracture. The Tile AO, the Young and Burgess, and the FFP classifications (subgroup with patients ≥ 60 years) were compared. Another blinded re-evaluation was carried out after 2 months to determine intraobserver reliability. RESULTS: The overall interobserver agreement was fair for all classification systems (ICC: OTA 0.55, Young and Burgess 0.42, FFP 0.54). For specific categories, (e.g. type B or C fractures), there was a substantial agreement between the experienced surgeons (kappa: OTA 0.64, Young and Burgess 0.62, FFP 0.68). For inexperienced observers, there was a fair agreement in all systems (kappa: OTA 0.23, Young and Burgess 0.23, FFP 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: All three classifications reach their maximum reliability with advanced expertise in the surgery of pelvic fractures. The novel FFP classification has proved to be at least equivalent when directly compared to the established systems. The FFP classification system showed substantial reliability in patients older than 60 years.
Entities:
Keywords:
Classification; FFP; Interobserver reliability; OTA; Pelvic trauma; Young and Burgees
Authors: Daniel Wagner; Andreas Höch; Philipp Pieroh; Tim Hohmann; Florian Gras; Sven Märdian; Alexander Pflug; Silvan Wittenberg; Christoph Ihle; Notker Blankenburg; Kevin Dallacker-Losensky; Tanja Schröder; Steven C Herath; Hans-Georg Palm; Christoph Josten; Fabian M Stuby Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Klemens Horst; Philipp Lichte; Felix Bläsius; Christian David Weber; Martin Tonglet; Philipp Kobbe; Nicole Heussen; Frank Hildebrand Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Julia R Coleman; Ernest E Moore; David Rojas Vintimilla; Joshua Parry; Jesse T Nelson; Jason M Samuels; Angela Sauaia; Mitchell J Cohen; Clay Cothren Burlew; Cyril Mauffrey Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2020-08-25