Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 4/2014

01-05-2014 | Original Article

Is there any purpose in classifying subtrochanteric fractures? The reproducibility of four classification systems

Authors: P. M. Guyver, M. J. H. McCarthy, Neil P. M. Jain, R. J. Poulter, C. J. P. McAllen, J. Keenan

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Classification systems are used for communication, planning treatment options, predicting outcomes and research purposes. The majority of subtrochanteric fractures are now treated with intramedullary nails and therefore questioning the need for classification.

Objectives

To assess the intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the Seinsheimer, AO and Russell-Taylor (RT) classification systems and to assess a new simple system (MCG).

Materials and methods

The MCG system was developed to alert the surgeon to potential hazards: type 1—subtrochanteric fracture (ST#) with intact trochanters, type 2—ST# involving greater trochanter (entry point for nailing difficult), and type 3—ST# involving lesser trochanter (most unstable). Thirty-two anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of subtrochanteric fractures were classified independently for each of the 4 classification systems by 4 observers on 2 separate occasions.

Results

The intra- and inter-observer variation was poor in all systems (highest Kappa 0.35). MCG had the best reproducibility followed by RT, then AO and Seinsheimer. The data were re-analysed to determine whether the findings were due to the presence of too many subgroups and whether the observers could more accurately identify important individual subclassifications: Seinsheimer 3a, AO31-A3.1, RT 1 or 2, RT a or b, and MCG3. The MCG3 had the narrowest ranges for intra- and inter-observer reproducibility.

Conclusions

The classification systems analysed in this study have poor reproducibility and seem to be of little value in predicting the outcome of intramedullary nailing as all of the fractures achieved union. The MCG system may be of some use in alerting the surgeon to potential problems.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Burstein AH (1993) Fracture classification systems: do they work and are they useful? J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1743–1744PubMed Burstein AH (1993) Fracture classification systems: do they work and are they useful? J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1743–1744PubMed
2.
go back to reference Seinsheimer F (1978) Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:300–306PubMed Seinsheimer F (1978) Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:300–306PubMed
3.
go back to reference Guyton JL (1998) Fractures of hip, acetabulum, and pelvis. In: Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. 9th edn. St. Louis, Mosby, 2181–2276 Guyton JL (1998) Fractures of hip, acetabulum, and pelvis. In: Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. 9th edn. St. Louis, Mosby, 2181–2276
4.
go back to reference Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P et al (1990) The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Springer, BerlinCrossRef Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P et al (1990) The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gehrchen PM, Nielsen JO, Olesen B, Andresen BK (1997) Seinsheimer’s classification of subtrochanteric fractures. Poor reproducibility of 4 observers’ evaluation of 50 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 68(6):524–526PubMedCrossRef Gehrchen PM, Nielsen JO, Olesen B, Andresen BK (1997) Seinsheimer’s classification of subtrochanteric fractures. Poor reproducibility of 4 observers’ evaluation of 50 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 68(6):524–526PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA et al (2002) Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury 33(8):713–715PubMedCrossRef Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA et al (2002) Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury 33(8):713–715PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Ramachandran M (2006) Basic orthopaedic sciences: the Stanmore guide. 1st edn. Hodder 13 Ramachandran M (2006) Basic orthopaedic sciences: the Stanmore guide. 1st edn. Hodder 13
8.
go back to reference SPSS® 11.0. SPSS Inc. (Nasdaq: SPSS) Chicago, IL, USA SPSS® 11.0. SPSS Inc. (Nasdaq: SPSS) Chicago, IL, USA
9.
go back to reference Corrales LA, Morshed S, Bhandari M, Miclau T (2008) Variability in the assessment of fracture-healing in orthopaedic trauma studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1862–1868PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Corrales LA, Morshed S, Bhandari M, Miclau T (2008) Variability in the assessment of fracture-healing in orthopaedic trauma studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1862–1868PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Damany DS, Parker JM, Gurusamy K (2006) Classification of subtrochanteric fractures. Which method if any? J Bone Joint Surg Br 88-B:167 Damany DS, Parker JM, Gurusamy K (2006) Classification of subtrochanteric fractures. Which method if any? J Bone Joint Surg Br 88-B:167
Metadata
Title
Is there any purpose in classifying subtrochanteric fractures? The reproducibility of four classification systems
Authors
P. M. Guyver
M. J. H. McCarthy
Neil P. M. Jain
R. J. Poulter
C. J. P. McAllen
J. Keenan
Publication date
01-05-2014
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-011-0780-3

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 4/2014 Go to the issue