Literature DB >> 33088242

Reliability and Validity of Acetabular and Femoral Bone Loss Classification Systems in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Alex Gu1,2, Marco Adriani1,2, Michael-Alexander Malahias1, Safa C Fassihi2, Allina A Nocon1, Mathias P Bostrom1, Peter K Sculco1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A variety of classification systems have been developed to help surgeons treat patients with acetabular or femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty, yet no "gold standard" for classification has been agreed upon. Furthermore, the reliability and validity of the available classification systems remain unknown. QUESTIONS/
PURPOSE: The aims of our study were to determine the reliability and validity of the three most common acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems (Paprosky, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [AAOS], and Saleh and Gross).
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies that reported on the reliability or validity (or both) of the acetabular and femoral components of the three bone loss classification systems.
RESULTS: In all, seven articles met our inclusion criteria. Six studies reported on the reliability (all six studies) or validity (three studies) of acetabular bone loss rating systems (286 acetabula), and five analyzed reliability (all five studies) or validity (three studies) of femoral bone loss classification systems (364 femurs). In studies in which either the Paprosky or AAOS acetabular bone loss classifications were used, the classification systems were considered unreliable in 75% and 100% of them, respectively. On the femoral side, the Paprosky classification demonstrated moderate interobserver and good intraobserver reliability. The AAOS femoral bone classification was found to have good intraobserver reliability but poor interobserver reliability. The Saleh and Gross acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems yielded mixed results, but each was considered reliable in one of the studies looking at these aspects of the systems.
CONCLUSION: Although surgical techniques, treatment options, and advanced imaging available to the surgeon have evolved over the past few decades, the acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems, first developed in the 1990s, have remained largely unchanged. Our results indicate that improvements to these systems are necessary in order for them to be as useful as possible in planning the surgical course. © Hospital for Special Surgery 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acetabular bone loss; classification; femoral bone loss; reliability; revision hip arthroplasty; systematic review; validity

Year:  2020        PMID: 33088242      PMCID: PMC7534882          DOI: 10.1007/s11420-020-09766-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HSS J        ISSN: 1556-3316


  27 in total

Review 1.  Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum in association with loss of bone stock.

Authors:  A E Gross; C P Duncan; D Garbuz; E M Mohamed
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1999

2.  The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification.

Authors:  Craig J Della Valle; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Classifications in brief: Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss.

Authors:  Jessica J M Telleria; Albert O Gee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Preoperative description of severe acetabular defects caused by failed total hip replacement.

Authors:  D D Robertson; C J Sutherland; T Lopes; J Yuan
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.826

Review 5.  Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management.

Authors:  Neil P Sheth; Charles L Nelson; Bryan D Springer; Thomas K Fehring; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 3.020

6.  CT-generated 3-dimensional models for complex acetabular reconstruction.

Authors:  S Munjal; S S Leopold; D Kornreich; S Shott; H A Finn
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J A D'Antonio; W N Capello; L S Borden; W L Bargar; B F Bierbaum; W G Boettcher; M E Steinberg; S D Stulberg; J H Wedge
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Classification of hip joint infections.

Authors:  Konstantinos Anagnostakos; Nora Verena Schmid; Jens Kelm; Ulrich Grün; Jochen Jung
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  Method for quantitative assessment of acetabular bone defects.

Authors:  Georg Hettich; Ronja A Schierjott; Heiko Ramm; Heiko Graichen; Volkmar Jansson; Maximilian Rudert; Francesco Traina; Thomas M Grupp
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Quantitative assessment of acetabular bone defects: A study of 50 computed tomography data sets.

Authors:  Ronja A Schierjott; Georg Hettich; Heiko Graichen; Volkmar Jansson; Maximilian Rudert; Francesco Traina; Patrick Weber; Thomas M Grupp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  [Strategies for cup revision].

Authors:  Maik Stiehler; Klaus-Peter Günther; Jens Goronzy
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-06-27

Review 2.  Pelvic discontinuity: a challenge to overcome.

Authors:  George C Babis; Vasileios S Nikolaou
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-06-28
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.