Reliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss based on level of orthopedic training.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s00402-024-05524-x
Daniel A Driscoll, Robert G Ricotti, Michael-Alexander Malahias, Allina A Nocon, Troy D Bornes, T David Tarity, Kathleen Tam, Ajay Premkumar, Wali U Pirzada, Friedrich Boettner, Peter K Sculco
{"title":"Reliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss based on level of orthopedic training.","authors":"Daniel A Driscoll, Robert G Ricotti, Michael-Alexander Malahias, Allina A Nocon, Troy D Bornes, T David Tarity, Kathleen Tam, Ajay Premkumar, Wali U Pirzada, Friedrich Boettner, Peter K Sculco","doi":"10.1007/s00402-024-05524-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss have been debated. Additionally, the relationship between surgeon training level and Paprosky classification accuracy/treatment selection is poorly defined. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the validity of preoperative Paprosky classification/treatment selection compared to intraoperative classification/treatment selection and (2) evaluate the relationship between training level and intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of preoperative classification and treatment choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-four patients with intraoperative Paprosky types [I (N = 24), II (N = 27), III (N = 23)] were selected. Six raters (Residents (N = 2), Fellows (N = 2), Attendings (N = 2)) independently provided Paprosky classification and treatment using preoperative radiographs. Graders reviewed images twice, 14 days apart. Cohen's Kappa was calculated for (1) inter-rater agreement of Paprosky classification/treatment by training level (2), intra-rater reliability, (3) preoperative and intraoperative classification agreement, and (4) preoperative treatment selection and actual treatment performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater agreement between raters of the same training level was moderate (K range = 0.42-0.50), and mostly poor for treatment selection (K range = 0.02-0.44). Intra-rater agreement ranged from fair to good (K range = 0.40-0.73). Agreement between preoperative and intraoperative classifications was fair (K range = 0.25-0.36). Agreement between preoperative treatment selections and actual treatments was fair (K range = 0.21-0.39).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inter-rater reliability of Paprosky classification was poor to moderate for all training levels. Preoperative Paprosky classification showed fair agreement with intraoperative Paprosky grading. Treatment selections based on preoperative radiographs had fair agreement with actual treatments. Further research should investigate the role of advanced imaging and alternative classifications in evaluation of acetabular bone loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"4267-4273"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05524-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Reliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss have been debated. Additionally, the relationship between surgeon training level and Paprosky classification accuracy/treatment selection is poorly defined. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the validity of preoperative Paprosky classification/treatment selection compared to intraoperative classification/treatment selection and (2) evaluate the relationship between training level and intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of preoperative classification and treatment choice.

Methods: Seventy-four patients with intraoperative Paprosky types [I (N = 24), II (N = 27), III (N = 23)] were selected. Six raters (Residents (N = 2), Fellows (N = 2), Attendings (N = 2)) independently provided Paprosky classification and treatment using preoperative radiographs. Graders reviewed images twice, 14 days apart. Cohen's Kappa was calculated for (1) inter-rater agreement of Paprosky classification/treatment by training level (2), intra-rater reliability, (3) preoperative and intraoperative classification agreement, and (4) preoperative treatment selection and actual treatment performed.

Results: Inter-rater agreement between raters of the same training level was moderate (K range = 0.42-0.50), and mostly poor for treatment selection (K range = 0.02-0.44). Intra-rater agreement ranged from fair to good (K range = 0.40-0.73). Agreement between preoperative and intraoperative classifications was fair (K range = 0.25-0.36). Agreement between preoperative treatment selections and actual treatments was fair (K range = 0.21-0.39).

Conclusion: Inter-rater reliability of Paprosky classification was poor to moderate for all training levels. Preoperative Paprosky classification showed fair agreement with intraoperative Paprosky grading. Treatment selections based on preoperative radiographs had fair agreement with actual treatments. Further research should investigate the role of advanced imaging and alternative classifications in evaluation of acetabular bone loss.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于骨科培训水平的 Paprosky 髋臼骨缺损分类的可靠性和有效性。
背景:Paprosky分类法对髋臼骨丢失的可靠性和有效性一直存在争议。此外,外科医生的培训水平与Paprosky分类准确性/治疗选择之间的关系也未得到很好的界定。本研究旨在(1)与术中分类/治疗选择相比,评估术前Paprosky分类/治疗选择的有效性;(2)评估培训水平与术前分类和治疗选择的评分者内和评分者间可靠性之间的关系:方法: 选择了74例术中Paprosky分型[I型(24例)、II型(27例)、III型(23例)]的患者。六名评分员(住院医师(2 名)、研究员(2 名)、主治医师(2 名))利用术前放射影像独立提供帕普洛斯基分型和治疗方法。分级人员两次审查图像,每次间隔 14 天。科恩卡帕(Cohen's Kappa)计算了:(1) 按培训级别(2)、评分者内部可靠性、(3) 术前和术中评分一致性、(4) 术前治疗选择和实际治疗的评分者间帕普洛斯基分级/治疗一致性:结果:同一培训级别的评分者之间的评分者间一致性为中等(K 范围 = 0.42-0.50),治疗选择的评分者间一致性大多较差(K 范围 = 0.02-0.44)。评分者内部的一致性从一般到良好不等(K 范围 = 0.40-0.73)。术前和术中分类的一致性一般(K 范围 = 0.25-0.36)。术前治疗选择与实际治疗之间的一致性一般(K 范围 = 0.21-0.39):结论:在所有培训级别中,Paprosky 分级的评分者之间的可靠性从较差到中等不等。术前帕普洛斯基分级与术中帕普洛斯基分级的一致性尚可。根据术前X光片选择治疗方法与实际治疗方法的一致性尚可。进一步的研究应探讨先进的成像技术和其他分类方法在评估髋臼骨质流失中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
期刊最新文献
Epiphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between trabecular metal and titanium augments. Bicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: a systematic review and Delphi consensus from the European Knee Society. Correction potential and outcome of various surgical procedures for hallux valgus surgery: a living systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient-reported outcome measures in studies on hallux valgus surgery: what should be assessed. Periprocedural clinical outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty: a multi-centric comparison of current strategies based on the NSQIP.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1