Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Research article

Classification and treatment of proximal humerus fractures: inter-observer reliability and agreement across imaging modalities and experience

Authors: Abtin Foroohar, Rick Tosti, John M Richmond, John P Gaughan, Asif M Ilyas

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common injuries, but previous studies have documented poor inter-observer reliability in fracture classification. This disparity has been attributed to multiple variables including poor imaging studies and inadequate surgeon experience. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether inter-observer agreement can be improved with the application of multiple imaging modalities including X-ray, CT, and 3D CT reconstructions, stratified by physician experience, for both classification and treatment of PHFs.

Methods

Inter-observer agreement was measured for classification and treatment of PHFs. A total of sixteen fractures were imaged by plain X-ray (scapular AP and lateral), CT scan, and 3D CT reconstruction, yielding 48 randomized image sets. The observers consisted of 16 orthopaedic surgeons (4 upper extremity specialists, 4 general orthopedists, 4 senior residents, 4 junior residents), who were asked to classify each image set using the Neer system, and recommend treatment from four pre-selected choices. The results were evaluated by kappa reliability coefficients for inter-observer agreement between all imaging modalities and sub-divided by: fracture type and observer experience.

Results

All kappa values ranged from "slight" to "moderate" (k = .03 to .57) agreement. For overall classification and treatment, no advanced imaging modality had significantly higher scores than X-ray. However, when sub-divided by experience, 3D reconstruction and CT scan both had significantly higher agreement on classification than X-ray, among upper extremity specialists. Agreement on treatment among upper extremity specialists was best with CT scan. No other experience sub-division had significantly different kappa scores. When sub-divided by fracture type, CT scan and 3D reconstruction had higher scores than X-ray for classification only in 4-part fractures. Agreement on treatment of 4 part fractures was best with CT scan. No other fracture type sub-division had significantly different kappa scores.

Conclusions

Although 3D reconstruction showed a slight improvement in the inter-observer agreement for fracture classification among specialized upper extremity surgeons compared to all imaging modalities, fracture types, and surgeon experience; overall all imaging modalities continue to yield low inter-observer agreement for both classification and treatment regardless of physician experience.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baron JA, Barrett JA, Karagas MR: The epidemiology of peripheral fractures. Bone. 1996, 18 (3 suppl): 209-13S.CrossRef Baron JA, Barrett JA, Karagas MR: The epidemiology of peripheral fractures. Bone. 1996, 18 (3 suppl): 209-13S.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Neer CS: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970, 52: 1077-89.PubMed Neer CS: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970, 52: 1077-89.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Neer CS: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970, 52: 1090-103.PubMed Neer CS: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970, 52: 1090-103.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Bernstein J, Adler LM, Blank JE, Dalsey RM, Williams GR, Iannotti JP: Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996, 78: 1371-5.PubMed Bernstein J, Adler LM, Blank JE, Dalsey RM, Williams GR, Iannotti JP: Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996, 78: 1371-5.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Brien H, Noftall F, MacMaster S, Cummings T, Landells C, Rockwood P: Neer's classification system: a critical appraisal. J Trauma. 1995, 38: 257-60. 10.1097/00005373-199502000-00022.CrossRefPubMed Brien H, Noftall F, MacMaster S, Cummings T, Landells C, Rockwood P: Neer's classification system: a critical appraisal. J Trauma. 1995, 38: 257-60. 10.1097/00005373-199502000-00022.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A: Improved interobserver variation after training of doctors in the Neer system. A randomised trial J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002, 84: 950-4. 10.1302/0301-620X.84B7.13010.CrossRefPubMed Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A: Improved interobserver variation after training of doctors in the Neer system. A randomised trial J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002, 84: 950-4. 10.1302/0301-620X.84B7.13010.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A: Low agreement among 24 doctors using the Neer-classification; only moderate agreement on displacement, even between specialists. Int Orthop. 2002, 26: 271-3. 10.1007/s00264-002-0369-x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A: Low agreement among 24 doctors using the Neer-classification; only moderate agreement on displacement, even between specialists. Int Orthop. 2002, 26: 271-3. 10.1007/s00264-002-0369-x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Brorson S, Hróbjartsson A: Training improves agreement among doctors using the Neer system for proximal humeral fractures in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (1): 7-16. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.014.CrossRefPubMed Brorson S, Hróbjartsson A: Training improves agreement among doctors using the Neer system for proximal humeral fractures in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (1): 7-16. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.014.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A: Diagnosing displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus: a review of observer studies. Int Orthop. 2009, 33 (2): 323-7. 10.1007/s00264-008-0591-2.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A: Diagnosing displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus: a review of observer studies. Int Orthop. 2009, 33 (2): 323-7. 10.1007/s00264-008-0591-2.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Sallay PI, Pedowitz RA, Mallon WJ, Vandemark RM, Dalton JD, Speer KP: Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997, 6: 60-9. 10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90072-0.CrossRefPubMed Sallay PI, Pedowitz RA, Mallon WJ, Vandemark RM, Dalton JD, Speer KP: Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997, 6: 60-9. 10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90072-0.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, Koval K, Cuomo F, Schoenberg N: The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures. An assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1745-50.PubMed Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, Koval K, Cuomo F, Schoenberg N: The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures. An assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1745-50.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, Koval K, Schoenberg N: Classification of proximal humerus fractures: the contribution of the scapular and axillary radiographs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994, 3: 24-7. 10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80004-9.CrossRefPubMed Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, Koval K, Schoenberg N: Classification of proximal humerus fractures: the contribution of the scapular and axillary radiographs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994, 3: 24-7. 10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80004-9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Siebenrock KA, Gerber C: The reproducibility of classification of fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1751-5.PubMed Siebenrock KA, Gerber C: The reproducibility of classification of fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1751-5.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Sjoden GOJ, Movin T, Guntner P, Aspelin P, Ahrengart L, Ersmark H: Poor reproducibility of classification of proximal humeral fractures. Additional CT of minor value. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997, 68: 239-42. 10.3109/17453679708996692.CrossRefPubMed Sjoden GOJ, Movin T, Guntner P, Aspelin P, Ahrengart L, Ersmark H: Poor reproducibility of classification of proximal humeral fractures. Additional CT of minor value. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997, 68: 239-42. 10.3109/17453679708996692.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Sjoden GOJ, Movin T, Aspelin P, Guntner P, Shalabi A: 3D-radiographic analysis does not improve the Neer and AO classifications of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999, 70: 325-8. 10.3109/17453679908997818.CrossRefPubMed Sjoden GOJ, Movin T, Aspelin P, Guntner P, Shalabi A: 3D-radiographic analysis does not improve the Neer and AO classifications of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999, 70: 325-8. 10.3109/17453679908997818.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Shrader MW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Rowland CM, Cofield RH: Understanding proximal humerus fractures: image analysis, classification, and treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005, 14: 497-505. 10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.014.CrossRefPubMed Shrader MW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Rowland CM, Cofield RH: Understanding proximal humerus fractures: image analysis, classification, and treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005, 14: 497-505. 10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.014.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kristansen B, Anderson UL, Olsen CA: The Neer classification of fractures of the proximal humerus. An assessment of interobserver variation. Skeletal Radiol. 1988, 17: 420-2. 10.1007/BF00361661.CrossRef Kristansen B, Anderson UL, Olsen CA: The Neer classification of fractures of the proximal humerus. An assessment of interobserver variation. Skeletal Radiol. 1988, 17: 420-2. 10.1007/BF00361661.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Petit CJ, Millett PJ, Endres NK, Diller D, Harris MB, Warner JP: Management of proximal humeral fractures: Surgeons don't agree. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010, 19: 446-451. 10.1016/j.jse.2009.06.012.CrossRefPubMed Petit CJ, Millett PJ, Endres NK, Diller D, Harris MB, Warner JP: Management of proximal humeral fractures: Surgeons don't agree. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010, 19: 446-451. 10.1016/j.jse.2009.06.012.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Frandsen PA, Andersen E, Madsen F, Skjadt T: Garden's classification of femoral neck fractures. An assessment of interobserver variation. J Bone and Joint Surg. 1988, 70-B (4): 588-590. Frandsen PA, Andersen E, Madsen F, Skjadt T: Garden's classification of femoral neck fractures. An assessment of interobserver variation. J Bone and Joint Surg. 1988, 70-B (4): 588-590.
20.
go back to reference Nielsen J0, Dons-Jensen H, Sorensen HT: Lauge-Hansen classification of malleolar fractures. An assessment of the reproducibility in 118 cases. Acta Orthop Scandinavica. 1990, 61: 385-387. 10.3109/17453679008993545.CrossRef Nielsen J0, Dons-Jensen H, Sorensen HT: Lauge-Hansen classification of malleolar fractures. An assessment of the reproducibility in 118 cases. Acta Orthop Scandinavica. 1990, 61: 385-387. 10.3109/17453679008993545.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Thomsen NOB, Olsen LH, Nielsen ST: Kappa statistics in the assessment of observer variation: the significance of multiple observers classifying ankle fractures. J Orthop Sci. 2002, 7: 163-166. 10.1007/s007760200028.CrossRefPubMed Thomsen NOB, Olsen LH, Nielsen ST: Kappa statistics in the assessment of observer variation: the significance of multiple observers classifying ankle fractures. J Orthop Sci. 2002, 7: 163-166. 10.1007/s007760200028.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Neer CS: Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002, 11: 389-400. 10.1067/mse.2002.124346.CrossRefPubMed Neer CS: Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002, 11: 389-400. 10.1067/mse.2002.124346.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Mora-Guix JM, Gonzalez AS, Brugalla JV, Carril EC, Baños FG: Proposed protocol for reading images of humeral head fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006, 448: 225 33 Mora-Guix JM, Gonzalez AS, Brugalla JV, Carril EC, Baños FG: Proposed protocol for reading images of humeral head fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006, 448: 225 33
24.
go back to reference Castagno AA, Shuma WP, Kilcoyne RF: Complex fractures of the proximal humerus: role of CT in treatment. Radiology. 1987, 165: 759-62.CrossRefPubMed Castagno AA, Shuma WP, Kilcoyne RF: Complex fractures of the proximal humerus: role of CT in treatment. Radiology. 1987, 165: 759-62.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Brunner A, Honigmann P, Treumann T, Babst R: The impact of stereo-visualisation of three-dimensional CT datasets on the inter- and intraobserver reliability of the AO/OTA and Neer classifications in the assessment of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009, 91 (6): 766-71. 10.1302/0301-620X.91B6.22109.CrossRefPubMed Brunner A, Honigmann P, Treumann T, Babst R: The impact of stereo-visualisation of three-dimensional CT datasets on the inter- and intraobserver reliability of the AO/OTA and Neer classifications in the assessment of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009, 91 (6): 766-71. 10.1302/0301-620X.91B6.22109.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960, 20: 37-46. 10.1177/001316446002000104.CrossRef Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960, 20: 37-46. 10.1177/001316446002000104.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Fleiss J: Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Pyschol Bull. 1971, 76 (5): 378-382.CrossRef Fleiss J: Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Pyschol Bull. 1971, 76 (5): 378-382.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG: Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-74. 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefPubMed Landis JR, Koch GG: Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-74. 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Burstein AH: Fracture classification systems: do they work and are they useful?. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1743-1744.PubMed Burstein AH: Fracture classification systems: do they work and are they useful?. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1743-1744.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Neer CS: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 789-PubMed Neer CS: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 789-PubMed
31.
go back to reference Rockwood CA: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 790-PubMed Rockwood CA: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 790-PubMed
32.
go back to reference Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Pollock RG: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 790-1.PubMed Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Pollock RG: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 790-1.PubMed
33.
go back to reference Cuomo F: Fracture classifications systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 792-PubMed Cuomo F: Fracture classifications systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 792-PubMed
34.
go back to reference Bernstein J: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 792-3. 299-301PubMed Bernstein J: Fracture classification systems. Do they work and are they useful? [correspondence]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 792-3. 299-301PubMed
35.
go back to reference Brennan R, Prediger D: Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1981, 41: 687-699. 10.1177/001316448104100307.CrossRef Brennan R, Prediger D: Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1981, 41: 687-699. 10.1177/001316448104100307.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Classification and treatment of proximal humerus fractures: inter-observer reliability and agreement across imaging modalities and experience
Authors
Abtin Foroohar
Rick Tosti
John M Richmond
John P Gaughan
Asif M Ilyas
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-38

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2011 Go to the issue