Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2022; 57(06): 917-923
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740471
Artigo Original
Mão

Evaluation of Intra- and Interobserver Reproducibility of the New AO/OTA Classification for Distal Radius Fractures Compared with the Fernandez Classification

Article in several languages: português | English
Beatriz Canhoto Carula 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
2   Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Giana Silveira Giostri 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Fabiana Bebber 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Marianna Fergutz dos S. Batista 
2   Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Flaviana Busignani da Silva 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Eduardo Murilo Novak 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
› Author Affiliations Financial Support The present survey has not received any specific funding from public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the inter- and intraobserver reliability and reproducibility of the new AO/OTA 2018 classification for distal radius fractures and to compare it with the Fernandez classification system.

Method A questionnaire was applied in the Qualtrics software on 10 specialists in hand surgery who classified 50 radiographs of distal radius fractures according to the Fernandez and AO/OTA 2018 classifications and, subsequently, indicated their treatment. The questionnaire was applied in time T0 and repeated after 4 weeks (t1). The mean agreement between the answers, and the reliability and inter- and intraobserver reproducibility were analyzed using kappa indexes.

Results The mean interobserver agreement in the Fernandez classification was 76.4, and it was 59.2% in the AO/OTA 2018 classification. The intraobserver agreements were 77.3 and 56.6%, respectively. The inter- and intraobserver kappa indexes for the Fernandez classification were 0.57 and 0.55, respectively, and, in the AO/OTA 2018 classification, they were 0.34 and 0.31, respectively.

Conclusion The AO/OTA 2018 classification showed a low intra- and interobserver reproducibility when compared with the Fernandez classification. However, both classifications have low intra- and interobserver indexes. Although the Fernandez classification did not obtain excellent results, it remains with better agreement for routine use.

Keywords

radius fractures/classification - wrist injuries - reproducibility of results - surveys and questionnaires

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 23 April 2021

Accepted: 13 August 2021

Article published online:
26 September 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Tenório PHM, Vieira MM, Alberti A, Abreu MFM, Nakamoto JC, Cliquet A. Evaluation of intra- and interobserver reliability of the AO classification for wrist fractures. Rev Bras Ortop 2018; 53 (06) 703-706
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Wæver D, Madsen ML, Rölfing JHD. et al. Distal radius fractures are difficult to classify. Injury 2018; 49 (Suppl. 01) S29-S32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Plant CE, Hickson C, Hedley H, Parsons NR, Costa ML. Is it time to revisit the AO classification of fractures of the distal radius? Inter- and intra-observer reliability of the AO classification. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (06) 818-823
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Naqvi SG, Reynolds T, Kitsis C. Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the Fernandez classification for distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009; 34 (04) 483-485
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Alffram PA, Bauer GC. Epidemiology of fractures of the forearm. A biomechanical investigation of bone strength. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1962; 44-A: 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Brogan DM, Richard MJ, Ruch D, Kakar S. Management of Severely Comminuted Distal Radius Fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40 (09) 1905-1914
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Shehovych A, Salar O, Meyer C, Ford DJ. Adult distal radius fractures classification systems: essential clinical knowledge or abstract memory testing?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016; 98 (08) 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Arora R, Gabl M, Gschwentner M, Deml C, Krappinger D, Lutz M. A comparative study of clinical and radiologic outcomes of unstable colles type distal radius fractures in patients older than 70 years: nonoperative treatment versus volar locking plating. J Orthop Trauma 2009; 23 (04) 237-242
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Meinberg EG, Agel J, Roberts CS, Karam MD, Kellam JF. Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018. J Orthop Trauma 2018; 32 (Suppl. 01) S1-S170
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Kanakaris NK, Lasanianos NG. Distal Radial Fractures. In: Lasanianos NG, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PV. editors. Trauma and Orthopaedic Classifications. New York: Springer; 2014: 95-105
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Jayakumar P, Teunis T, Giménez BB, Verstreken F, Di Mascio L, Jupiter JB. AO Distal Radius Fracture Classification: Global Perspective on Observer Agreement. J Wrist Surg 2017; 6 (01) 46-53
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lee DY, Park YJ, Park JS. A Meta-analysis of Studies of Volar Locking Plate Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures: Conventional versus Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis. Clin Orthop Surg 2019; 11 (02) 208-219
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Melone Jr CP. Articular fractures of the distal radius. Orthop Clin North Am 1984; 15 (02) 217-236
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Fernandez DL. Distal radius fracture: the rationale of a classification. Chir Main 2001; 20 (06) 411-425
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Cooney WP. Fractures of the distal radius. A modern treatment-based classification. Orthop Clin North Am 1993; 24 (02) 211-216
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J. et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21 (10, Suppl) S1-S133
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Illarramendi A, González Della Valle A, Segal E, De Carli P, Maignon G, Gallucci G. Evaluation of simplified Frykman and AO classifications of fractures of the distal radius. Assessment of interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Int Orthop 1998; 22 (02) 111-115
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Koval K, Haidukewych GJ, Service B, Zirgibel BJ. Controversies in the management of distal radius fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22 (09) 566-575
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Thurston AJ. ‘Ao’ or eponyms: the classification of wrist fractures. ANZ J Surg 2005; 75 (05) 347-355
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Porrino Jr JA, Maloney E, Scherer K, Mulcahy H, Ha AS, Allan C. Fracture of the distal radius: epidemiology and premanagement radiographic characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203 (03) 551-559
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Yinjie Y, Gen W, Hongbo W. et al. A retrospective evaluation of reliability and reproducibility of Arbeitsgemeinschaftfür Osteosynthesefragen classification and Fernandez classification for distal radius fracture. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99 (02) e18508
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Martin JS, Marsh JL, Bonar SK, DeCoster TA, Found EM, Brandser EA. Assessment of the AO/ASIF fracture classification for the distal tibia. J Orthop Trauma 1997; 11 (07) 477-483
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Randolph JJ. Online Kappa Calculator [Computer software]. 2008 Available from: http://justus.randolph.name/kappa
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 van Leerdam RH, Souer JS, Lindenhovius AL, Ring DC. Agreement between Initial Classification and Subsequent Reclassification of Fractures of the Distal Radius in a Prospective Cohort Study. Hand (N Y) 2010; 5 (01) 68-71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Belloti JC, Tamaoki MJ, Franciozi CE. et al. Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement. Sao Paulo Med J 2008; 126 (03) 180-185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kleinlugtenbelt YV, Groen SR, Ham SJ. et al. Classification systems for distal radius fractures. Acta Orthop 2017; 88 (06) 681-687
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Mulders MA, Rikli D, Goslings JC, Schep NW. Classification and treatment of distal radius fractures: a survey among orthopaedic trauma surgeons and residents. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2017; 43 (02) 239-248
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar