Top

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology

Published in:

01-07-2019 | Periprosthetic Fracture | Original Article • HIP & KNEE - FRACTURES

Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures

Authors: Toby Jennison, Abdulla Jawed, Ahmed ElBakoury, Hazem Hosny, Rathan Yarlagadda

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 5/2019

Abstract

Objectives

An interprosthetic fracture occurs between a hip and knee arthroplasty. There is currently no universally agreed classification. The aim of this study was to determine the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the most commonly used interprosthetic fracture classifications.

Methods

Nineteen interprosthetic fractures were classified by four reviewers for inter- and intraobserver reliability. The most commonly used interprosthetic fracture classifications were the Soenen classification, Platzer classification, and Pires classification. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was calculated.

Results

A moderate interobserver reliability was found for all the classification systems. The Platzer classification had a kappa value of 0.586, the Pires classification 0.499, and Soenen classification 0.489. The intraobserver error was 0.767 for the Platzer classification (substantial agreement), 0.636 for the Pires classification (substantial agreement), and 0.318 for the Soenen classification (fair agreement).

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated moderate interobserver reliability and substantial intraobserver reliability for both the Platzer and Pires classifications. This paper would recommend the use of either classification for interprosthetic fractures.

The NJR Editorial Board. 14th Annual report 2017 National Joint Registry for England, Wales Northern Ireland and Isle of Man http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/report

Sidler-Maier CC, Waddell JP (2015) Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop 39(9):1673–1682PubMedCrossRef

Drew JM, Grif WL, Odum SM, Van Doren B, Weston BT, Stryker LS (2016) Survivorship after periprosthetic femur fracture: factors affecting outcome. J Arthroplasty 31:1283–1288PubMedCrossRef

Abdel MP, Cottino U, Mabry TM (2015) Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 39(10):2005–2010PubMedCrossRef

Solarino G, Vicenti G, Moretti L, Abate A, Spinarelli A, Moretti B (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures—a challenge of treatment. A Syst Rev Lit Inj 45(2):362–368

Scolaro JA, Schwarzkopf R (2017) Management of interprosthetic femur fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25(4):e63–e69PubMedCrossRef

Soenen M, Migaud H, Bonnomet F, Girard J, Mathevon H, Ehlinger M (2011) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: analysis of 14 cases. Proposal for an additional grade in the Vancouver and SoFCOT classifications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(7):693–698PubMedCrossRef

Fink B, Fuerst M, Singer J (2005) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur associated with hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(7):433–442PubMedCrossRef

Pires RE, de Toledo Lourenço PR, Labronici PJ, da Rocha LR, Balbachevsky D, Cavalcante FR, de Andrade MA (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: proposed new classification system and treatment algorithm. Injury 45(Suppl 5):S2–S6PubMedCrossRef

10.

Platzer P, Schuster R, Luxl M, Widhalm HK, Eipeldauer S, Krusche-Mandl I, Ostermann R, Blutsch B, Vécsei V (2011) Management and outcome of interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 42(11):1219–1225PubMedCrossRef

11.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRef

12.

Pires RES, Silveira MPS, Resende ARDS, Junior EOS, Campos TVO, Santos LEN, Balbachevsky D, Andrade MAP (2017) Validation of a new classification system for interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 48(7):388–1392CrossRef

13.

Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I (2003) A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty 18(5):638–642PubMedCrossRef

Title: Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures
Authors: Toby Jennison
Abdulla Jawed
Ahmed ElBakoury
Hazem Hosny
Rathan Yarlagadda
Publication date: 01-07-2019
Publisher: Springer Paris
Keyword: Periprosthetic Fracture
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02393-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Comparison of radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures treated using PFN and PFNA-2 in patients with osteoporosis

The dual subscapularis procedure: a modified Hawkins’ technique for neglected posterior fracture/dislocation of the shoulder

Management of pediatric tibial tubercle fractures: Is surgical treatment really necessary?

The ‘sentinel’ vessel: an anatomical landmark to identify the pes anserinus during hamstrings harvest for ACL reconstruction

Use of a stainless steel locking calcaneal plate for quadrilateral plate buttress in the treatment of acetabular fractures

Early complications of revision total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients