Periprosthetic humerus fractures after shoulder arthroplasty: an evaluation of available classification systems

被引:2
|
作者
Kuhn, M. Zino [1 ]
King, Joseph J. [2 ,4 ]
Wright, Thomas W. [2 ]
Farmer, Kevin W. [2 ]
Levy, Jonathan C. [3 ]
Hao, Kevin A. [1 ]
Wallace, Austin [2 ]
Patrick, Matthew [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Coll Med, Gainesville, FL USA
[2] Univ Florida, Dept Orthopaed & Rehabil, Gainesville, FL USA
[3] Holy Cross Orthopaed Inst, Ft Lauderdale, FL USA
[4] 3450 Hull Rd,Ste 3301, Gainesville, FL 32607 USA
关键词
Periprosthetic humerus fractures; classification; shoulder arthroplasty; observer reliability; VANCOUVER CLASSIFICATION; FEMORAL FRACTURES; MANAGEMENT; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY; ADJACENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jse.2022.04.011
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Periprosthetic proximal humerus fractures (PPHFs) are a detrimental complication of shoulder arthroplasty, yet their characterization and management have been poorly studied. We aimed to determine the intra-and interobserver reliability of 4 previously described PPHF classification systems to evaluate which classifications are the most consistent. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients (34 fractures) that were diagnosed with a PPHF between 1990 and 2017. Patient electronic medical records and research electronic data capture (REDCap) were used for data collection. Post-PPHF radiographs in multiple views for all 34 cases were organized into an encrypted, randomized Qualtrics survey. Four blinded fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons graded each fracture using previously reported classification systems by (1) Wright and Cofield (1995), (2) Campbell et al (1998), (3) Worland et al (1999), and (4) Groh et al (2008), along with selecting a preferred management strategy for each fracture. Grading was performed twice with at least 2 weeks between each randomized attempt. Intraobserver reliability was calculated as an unweighted Cohen kappa coefficient between attempt 1 and attempt 2 for each surgeon. Interobserver reliability and agreeability between surgeons' preferred management strategies were calculated for each classification system using Fleiss kappa coefficient. The kappa coefficients were interpreted using the Landis and Koch criteria. Results: The average intraobserver kappa coefficient for each classification was as follows: Wright and Cofield = 0.703, Campbell = 0.527, Worland = 0.637, Groh = 0.699. The overall Fleiss kappa coefficient for interobserver reliability for each classification was as follows: Wright and Cofield = 0.583, Campbell = 0.488, Worland = 0.496, Groh = 0.483. Interobserver reliability was significantly greater with the Wright and Cofield classification. Using Landis and Koch criteria, all the classification systems assessed demonstrated only moderate interobserver agreement. Additionally, the mean interobserver agreeability kappa coefficient for preferred management strategy was 0.490, indicating only moderate interobserver agreement. Conclusion: There is only moderate interobserver reliability among the 4 PPHF classification systems and the preferred management strategy for the fractures assessed. Of the 4 PPHF classification systems, Wright and Cofield demonstrated the greatest mean intraobserver reliability and overall interobserver reliability. Our study highlights a need for the development of a PPHF classification system that can achieve high intra-and interobserver reliability and that can allow for a standardized treatment algorithm in the management of PPHFs.
引用
收藏
页码:2034 / 2042
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Validation of a new classification for periprosthetic shoulder fractures
    Chlodwig Kirchhoff
    Marc Beirer
    Ulrich Brunner
    Arne Buchholz
    Peter Biberthaler
    Moritz Crönlein
    International Orthopaedics, 2018, 42 : 1371 - 1377
  • [22] Validation of a new classification for periprosthetic shoulder fractures
    Kirchhoff, Chlodwig
    Beirer, Marc
    Brunner, Ulrich
    Buchholz, Arne
    Biberthaler, Peter
    Croenlein, Moritz
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2018, 42 (06) : 1371 - 1377
  • [23] Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Management of Proximal Humerus Fractures
    Jobin, Charles M.
    Galdi, Balazs
    Anakwenze, Oke A.
    Ahmad, Christopher S.
    Levine, William N.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2015, 23 (03) : 190 - 201
  • [24] Shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of the sequelae of proximal humerus fractures
    Brunner, U.
    Koehler, S.
    ORTHOPADE, 2007, 36 (11): : 1037 - 1049
  • [25] Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus
    Boileau, P
    Trojani, C
    Walch, G
    Krishnan, SG
    Romeo, A
    Sinnerton, R
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2001, 10 (04) : 299 - 308
  • [26] Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in recent proximal humerus fractures
    Werthel, Jean-David
    Sirveaux, Francois
    Block, Damien
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2018, 104 (06) : 779 - 785
  • [27] Nonoperative Treatment of Periprosthetic Humeral Shaft Fractures After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
    Ragusa, Paul S.
    Vadhera, Amar
    Jang, Jessica M.
    Ali, Iman
    McFarland, Edward G.
    Srikumaran, Uma
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2020, 43 (06) : E553 - E560
  • [28] DIAGNOSIS OF PERIPROSTHETIC INFECTION AFTER SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY
    Ricchetti, Eric T.
    Frangiamore, Salvatore J.
    Grosso, Matthew J.
    Alolabi, Bashar
    Saleh, Anas
    Bauer, Thomas W.
    Iannotti, Joseph P.
    JBJS REVIEWS, 2013, 1 (01)
  • [29] Scapular fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: evaluation of risk factors and the reliability of a proposed classification
    Otto, Randall J.
    Virani, Nazeem A.
    Levy, Jonathan C.
    Nigro, Phillip T.
    Cuff, Derek J.
    Frankle, Mark A.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2013, 22 (11) : 1514 - 1521
  • [30] Modification of the Unified Classification System for periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty
    Huang, Jie-Feng
    Jiang, Xian-Jun
    Shen, Jian-Jian
    Zhong, Ying
    Tong, Pei-Jian
    Fan, Xiao-Hong
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SCIENCE, 2018, 23 (06) : 982 - 986