2018年修订版AO/OTA股骨柄骨折分类的可靠性。

IF 1.9 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.4055/cios23292
Jung-Wee Park, Woo-Lam Jo, Byung Kyu Park, Jong Jin Go, Minji Han, Sungha Chun, Young-Kyun Lee
{"title":"2018年修订版AO/OTA股骨柄骨折分类的可靠性。","authors":"Jung-Wee Park, Woo-Lam Jo, Byung Kyu Park, Jong Jin Go, Minji Han, Sungha Chun, Young-Kyun Lee","doi":"10.4055/cios23292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) classification system for diaphyseal fracture has been recently revised to refine and enhance the accuracy of fracture categorization. This study aimed to investigate the interobserver reliability of the new AO/OTA classification and to compare it with the older version in femoral shaft fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 139 patients (mean age, 43.8 ± 19.5 years; 92 men and 47 women) with femoral shaft fractures who were treated from 2003 to 2017. Four well-trained observers independently classified each fracture following the previous and revised AO/OTA classification system. We calculated the Fleiss kappa for the interobserver reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The previous classification showed the kappa value of 0.580 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.547-0.613), and the revised version showed 0.528 (95% CI, 0.504-0.552). Both the old and the revised versions showed moderate reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study highlights the moderate interobserver reliability of both the previous and new AO/OTA classification systems for diaphyseal femur fractures. These findings emphasize the importance of standardized systems in clinical decision-making and underscore the need for ongoing education and collaboration to enhance fracture classification.</p>","PeriodicalId":47648,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","volume":"16 5","pages":"688-693"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11444943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of the 2018 Revised Version of AO/OTA Classification for Femoral Shaft Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Jung-Wee Park, Woo-Lam Jo, Byung Kyu Park, Jong Jin Go, Minji Han, Sungha Chun, Young-Kyun Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.4055/cios23292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) classification system for diaphyseal fracture has been recently revised to refine and enhance the accuracy of fracture categorization. This study aimed to investigate the interobserver reliability of the new AO/OTA classification and to compare it with the older version in femoral shaft fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 139 patients (mean age, 43.8 ± 19.5 years; 92 men and 47 women) with femoral shaft fractures who were treated from 2003 to 2017. Four well-trained observers independently classified each fracture following the previous and revised AO/OTA classification system. We calculated the Fleiss kappa for the interobserver reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The previous classification showed the kappa value of 0.580 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.547-0.613), and the revised version showed 0.528 (95% CI, 0.504-0.552). Both the old and the revised versions showed moderate reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study highlights the moderate interobserver reliability of both the previous and new AO/OTA classification systems for diaphyseal femur fractures. These findings emphasize the importance of standardized systems in clinical decision-making and underscore the need for ongoing education and collaboration to enhance fracture classification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"16 5\",\"pages\":\"688-693\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11444943/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios23292\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios23292","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最近,德国骨科协会(AO)和创伤骨科协会(OTA)对骨骺骨折分类系统进行了修订,以完善和提高骨折分类的准确性。本研究旨在调查新版 AO/OTA 分类法的观察者间可靠性,并将其与旧版股骨干骨折分类法进行比较:我们回顾性分析了 2003 年至 2017 年期间接受治疗的 139 例股骨柄骨折患者(平均年龄为 43.8 ± 19.5 岁;男性 92 例,女性 47 例)。四名训练有素的观察员按照之前和修订后的 AO/OTA 分类系统对每例骨折进行了独立分类。我们计算了观察者间可靠性的弗莱斯卡帕值:旧版分类法的卡帕值为 0.580(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.547-0.613),修订版的卡帕值为 0.528(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.504-0.552)。旧版本和修订版本均显示出中等程度的可靠性:我们的研究强调了旧版和新版AO/OTA股骨骺骨折分类系统在观察者之间的中等可信度。这些发现强调了标准化系统在临床决策中的重要性,并强调了持续教育和合作以加强骨折分类的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reliability of the 2018 Revised Version of AO/OTA Classification for Femoral Shaft Fractures.

Background: The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) classification system for diaphyseal fracture has been recently revised to refine and enhance the accuracy of fracture categorization. This study aimed to investigate the interobserver reliability of the new AO/OTA classification and to compare it with the older version in femoral shaft fractures.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 139 patients (mean age, 43.8 ± 19.5 years; 92 men and 47 women) with femoral shaft fractures who were treated from 2003 to 2017. Four well-trained observers independently classified each fracture following the previous and revised AO/OTA classification system. We calculated the Fleiss kappa for the interobserver reliability.

Results: The previous classification showed the kappa value of 0.580 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.547-0.613), and the revised version showed 0.528 (95% CI, 0.504-0.552). Both the old and the revised versions showed moderate reliability.

Conclusions: Our study highlights the moderate interobserver reliability of both the previous and new AO/OTA classification systems for diaphyseal femur fractures. These findings emphasize the importance of standardized systems in clinical decision-making and underscore the need for ongoing education and collaboration to enhance fracture classification.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Posterior Acetabular Coverage of the Femoral Head in Sport-Related Posterior Hip Dislocation or Subluxation. Reliability of Ultrasound Elastography According to Experience Level and Anatomic Location. The Impact of Hospital Volume and Region on Mortality, Medical Costs, and Length of Hospital Stay in Elderly Patients Following Hip Fracture: A Nationwide Claims Database Analysis. Unveiling and Validating a Modified Method to Assess Cervical Sagittal Alignment as an Effective Substitute for Conventional C2-7 Cobb Angle. Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Quadriceps Tendon-Patellar Bone Allograft.
×
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