Reproducibility of classifications for olecranon fractures

Mayo classification of olecranon fractures revisited - Assessment of intra- and interobserver reliability based on CT scans

Purpose

Olecranon fractures are classified using the commonly accepted Mayo classification. Its reliability has been analyzed by means of radiographs. A CT scan is often obtained due to joint involvement. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the intra- and interobserver reliability of the Mayo classification based on CT examination.

Methods

Radiographic and CT images of 20 olecranon fractures were classified by four surgeons at two time points 30 days apart. Intra- and interobserver reliability were assessed using kappa coefficients.

Results

Mean intraobserver reliability between X-rays was substantial and between CTs almost perfect (0.76 and 0.82, respectively). Mean interobserver reliability was fair for X-rays and moderate for CTs (0.32 and 0.44, respectively).

Conclusion

Despite the more detailed imaging compared with radiography only moderate interobserver reliability was found for the classification of olecranon fractures based on CT imaging. This might lead to inconsistent fracture classification in both scientific and clinical setting.

Reproducibility of the Mayo and Schatzker classification systems in proximal ulna fractures

INTRODUCTION

A fracture classification system should provide a reliable and reproducible means of communication between different parties. It should be logical and understandable, with few categories to memorize. The aim of this study was to determine the intra- and interobserver reliability of the Schatzker and Mayo classification systems for the assessment of proximal ulna fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Intra- and interobserver reliability studies were conducted on 39 X-rays of injured elbows drawn randomly from 74 cases previously used in a series on predictors of ulnohumeral osteoarthritis in proximal ulna fractures. Ten observers independently reviewed these X-rays on 2 separate occasions 3 months apart. The fracture type was assessed according to the Schatzker and Mayo classification systems during each reading session. Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa were used to measure the intra- and interobserver reliability.

RESULTS

The Schatzker classification had a fair interobserver reliability for the first (Schatzker R1, Fleiss' κ: 0.394) and second (Schatzker R2, Fleiss' κ: 0.351) readings. The mean intraobserver reliability value between the 10 reviewers for the Schatzker classification was rated as substantial (0.61). The Mayo classification had a fair interobserver reliability for the first (Mayo R1, Fleiss' κ: 0.278) and second (Mayo R2, Fleiss' κ: 0.292) readings. The mean intraobserver reliability value between the 10 reviewers for the Mayo classification was rated as fair (0.52).

DISCUSSION

The classification systems for proximal ulna fractures showed poor reproducibility between the different observers since they had low interobserver agreement values. Nevertheless, their use remained reliable since the measured intraobserver agreement value was deemed substantial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective.

Reliability of the CURL classification for proximal ulna fracture-dislocations of the elbow

Background

Proximal ulna fracture-dislocations are challenging injuries with a myriad of existing classification systems. The Coronoid, proximal Ulna, Radius, and Ligaments classification (CURL) is a simple framework designed to focus attention on the key components affecting outcome and guide surgical management. This study evaluates interobserver and intraobserver reliability of this new classification.

Methods

Four observers independently reviewed plain radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with proximal ulna fracture-dislocations. Each observer scored the Coronoid (C), proximal Ulna (U), and Radius (R) components for each fracture on 2 occasions. The osseous components were subclassified as 'intact', 'simple', or 'complex'. The Ligament component (L) was not rated as this requires intraoperative classification. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was calculated using Cohen's weighted kappa coefficients. X-ray and CT were compared for patients with both imaging modalities. The Landis and Koch criteria were used to interpret the strength of the kappa statistics.

Results

One hundred seventy seven patients had plain X-rays; 58 patients had both X-ray and CT scans. Overall, in the X-ray only cohort, there was 'almost perfect' interobserver reliability for the radial head (k = 0.94) and coronoid (k = 0.83), and 'substantial' reliability (k = 0.68) for the proximal ulna. For the X-ray and CT cohort, interobserver reliability was 'almost perfect' across both modalities for the radial head (k = 0.88 and k = 0.93, respectively) and 'moderate' for the proximal ulna (k = 0.48 and k = 0.52, respectively). For the coronoid, interobserver reliability for X-ray interpretation was 'substantial' (k = 0.74) and for CT was 'almost perfect' (k = 0.89). Intraobserver reliability was 'almost perfect' for all components, other than CT assessment of the proximal ulna which demonstrated 'substantial' reliability (k = 0.74).

Conclusion

The Coronoid, proximal Ulna, Radius, and Ligaments classification demonstrates strong interobserver and intraobserver reliability, supporting use of the classification for proximal ulna fracture-dislocations. CT is recommended for improved characterization of any fracture with a coronoid component.

Effect of Computerized Tomography on Assessment and Surgical Planning for Olecranon Fractures

OBJECTIVES

(1) Determine effects of computed tomography (CT) on reproducibility of olecranon fracture classification. (2) Determine effects of CT utilization on interobserver agreement regarding management of olecranon fractures. (3) Evaluate factors associated with articular impaction.

METHODS

Seven surgeons retrospectively evaluated radiographs of 46 olecranon fractures. Each fracture was classified according to Colton, Mayo, Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO Foundation (OTA/AO) systems. Observers determined whether articular impaction was present and provided treatment plans. This was repeated at minimum 6 weeks with addition of CT. Descriptive and comparative statistics were performed and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Interrater agreement was near-perfect for all classifications using radiographs (ICC 0.91, 0.93, 0.89 for Colton, Mayo, OTA/AO) and did not substantially change with CT (ICC 0.91, 0.91, 0.93). Agreement was moderate regarding articular impaction using radiographs (ICC 0.44); this improved significantly with CT (ICC 0.82). Articular impaction was significantly associated with OTA/AO classification, with high prevalence of impaction in OTA/AO 2U1B1e ( P < 0.03). Agreement was substantial for chosen fixation construct using radiographs (ICC 0.71); this improved with CT (ICC 0.79). Utilization of CT changed fixation plans in 25% of cases. Agreement regarding need for void filler was fair using radiographs (ICC 0.37); this notably improved with CT (ICC 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of CT for evaluating olecranon fractures led to significant improvements in interobserver agreement for presence of articular impaction. Impaction was significantly associated with fracture pattern, but not with patient-related factors. Addition of CT improved agreement regarding fixation construct and led to notable improvement in agreement regarding need for void filler.

Risk Factors for Loss of Reduction After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Isolated Olecranon Fractures in Adults

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether any relevant patient, fracture, surgical, or postoperative characteristics are associated with loss of reduction after plate fixation of isolated olecranon fractures in adults.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation of an olecranon fracture at our institution over an 11-year period were analyzed. Electronic patient charts and radiographic images were reviewed to gather patient, fracture, surgical, and postoperative data. Statistical analysis to explore the differences between groups was performed.

RESULTS

Seven of 96 patients experienced a loss of fracture reduction diagnosed at a median of 19 days after their initial surgery (range: 4-116 days). The radiographic mode of failure of all patients who lost reduction was proximal migration of the proximal fracture fragment with or without implant failure. The group that lost reduction had a significantly smaller proximal fragment (14.2 vs 18.6 mm), a higher incidence of malreduction with a persistent articular step-off greater than 2 mm (6/7 vs 14/89), a greater distance between the most proximal screw and the olecranon tip (19.8 vs 13.5 mm), a higher proportion of constructs with screws placed outside of the primary plate (4/7 vs 14/89), and a higher proportion of patients that were not immobilized postoperatively (3/7 vs 8/89).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest anatomical reduction at the articular surface and adequate fixation of the proximal fragment are key factors in maintenance of reduction, with smaller proximal fragments being at higher risk for failure. A period of postoperative immobilization may decrease the risk of loss of reduction.

Olecranon fractures : current treatment concepts

Despite being one of the most common injuries around the elbow, the optimal treatment of olecranon fractures is far from established and stimulates debate among both general orthopaedic trauma surgeons and upper limb specialists. It is almost universally accepted that stable non-displaced fractures can be safely treated nonoperatively with minimal specialist input. Internal fixation is recommended for the vast majority of displaced fractures, with a range of techniques and implants to choose from. However, there is concern regarding the complication rates, largely related to symptomatic metalwork resulting in high rates of implant removal. As the number of elderly patients sustaining these injuries increases, we are becoming more aware of the issues associated with fixation in osteoporotic bone and the often fragile soft-tissue envelope in this group. Given this, there is evidence to support an increasing role for nonoperative management in this high-risk demographic group, even in those presenting with displaced and/or multifragmentary fracture patterns. This review summarizes the available literature to date, focusing predominantly on the management techniques and available implants for stable fractures of the olecranon. It also offers some insights into the potential avenues for future research, in the hope of addressing some of the pertinent questions that remain unanswered.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):112-123.

Olecranon Fractures: A Critical Analysis Review

»

Olecranon fractures account for 10% of all elbow fractures and are more likely to result from a low-energy injury. A displaced fracture with a stable ulnohumeral joint (Mayo type 2) is the most common type of injury.

»

The management of an isolated olecranon fracture is based on patient factors (age, functional demand, and if medically fit to undergo surgery) and fracture characteristics including displacement, fragmentation, and elbow stability.

»

Nonoperative management can be successfully used in undisplaced fractures (Mayo type 1) and in displaced fractures (Mayo type 2) in frail patients with lower functional demands.

»

Patients with displaced olecranon fractures with a stable ulnohumeral joint without significant articular surface fragmentation (Mayo type 2A) can be managed with tension band wiring, plate osteosynthesis (PO), intramedullary fixation, or suture repair.

»

PO is advocated for multifragmentary fractures and fractures that are associated with ulnohumeral instability. It is essential to consider the variable anatomy of the proximal ulna during surgery.

Epidemiology of isolated olecranon fractures: a detailed survey on a large sample of patients in a suburban area

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

The Emergent Evaluation and Treatment of Elbow and Forearm Injuries

This article provides an updated review of the emergent evalution and treatment of elbow and forearm injuries in the emergency department. Clinically necessary imaging is discussed. Common and uncommon injuries of the elbow and forearm are reviewed with an emphasis on early recognition, efficient management, and avoidance of complications. The astute emergency physician will rely on a focused history and precise examination, applied anatomic knowledge, and strong radiographic interpretative skills to avoid missed injuries and complications.

Plate fixation and tension band wiring after isolated olecranon fracture comparison of outcome and complications

Objective

Olecranon fractures are common injuries in patients of any age. The vast majority are treated with two operation techniques: a plate fixation (PF) or tension band wiring (TBW). The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of surgically treated olecranon fractures with plate fixation or tension band wiring. We hypothesise that PF patients would show significantly inferior outcomes due to more complex injuries.

Patients and methods

Between 2010 and 2017, a total of 108 patients were treated with plate fixation and or tension band wiring. Clinical data of 40 surgically treated olecranon fractures were collected and analysed. Clinical and functional evaluations were performed using Mayo-Score, DASH-Score, Weseley -Score and subject elbow value (SEV). Furthermore, complication rates, time to return to work and operation duration were documented.

Results

The mean follow-up was 70.5 ± 45.6 months. Time of return to work was 6.5 ± 2.2 weeks in the TBW group and 10.9 ± 6,6 in the PF group (p = 0.372). The mean duration of surgery was 95.2 ± 47.0 min in the TBW group and 192.5 ± 113.0 min in the PF group (p = 0.001). In the TBW group, the mean hospitalisation period was 7.9 ± 10.1 days and 11.2 ± 9.8 days in the PF group. Revisions were required in 0.3 ± 0.6 of cases (0.2 ± 0.5 in TBE and 0.4 ± 0.7 in PF). The median DASH Score was 7.0 (3.6-13.7) in the TBW group and 12.1 (5.5-24.8) in the PF group (p = 0.948).

Conclusion

Tension band wiring and plate fixation are both practical treatment options with mostly positive outcomes, even though high complication rates can occur. There were no significant differences in either group concerning functional outcome or time back to work. The duration of surgery was significantly higher in the PF group, whereas the incidence of metalwork-associated complications was higher in the TBW group.