Interrater Reliability for the Basic Categories of the Ao/Asif's System as a Frame of Reference for Classifying Distal Radial Fractures

Distal Radius Fracture Rehabilitation

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is arguably the most common upper extremity fracture resulting from a fall accident. These clinical practice guidelines (CPG) were developed to guide all aspects of the management of DRF by physical therapists and other rehabilitation practitioners, such as certified hand therapists. This CPG employed a systematic review methodology to locate, appraise, and synthesize contemporary evidence while developing practice recommendations for determining the prognosis of outcomes, examination, and interventions while managing individuals with DRF. The quality of the primary studies found in the literature search was appraised using standardized tools. The strength of the available evidence for a particular practice domain (e.g., prognosis or intervention) was graded as strong, moderate, weak, or conflicting, where such gradings guided the level of obligation for each practice recommendation. Lastly, the CPG also provided the gaps in the evidence pool for the rehabilitation of DRF that future research efforts can address. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):CPG1-CPG78. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.0301.

Establishment and preliminary evaluation of CT-based classification for distal radius fracture

Establish a new classification system of distal radius fracture based on computed tomographic (CT), and evaluate its reliability and reproducibility preliminarily, and provide a new theoretical reference for clinicians to use the clinical classification system. The imaging data and clinical data of 204 inpatients with distal radius fracture during 6 years from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2019 in orthopaedic department were analyzed retrospectively and classified based on CT. Three observers evaluated the image data of 48 randomly selected cases based on CT at different time nodes of T1 and T2. Cohen's kappa was used to calculate the consistency. At the last follow-up, patients' Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), and VAS scores were collected. Among 204 cases, there were 12 cases of type 1, including 6 cases of type 1-D, 4 cases of type 1-V and 2 cases of type 1-R. There were 6 cases of type 2, including 2 cases of type 2-DV, 2 cases of type 2-DR and 2 cases of type 2-VR. There were 186 cases of type 3, including 32 cases of type 3-0, 127 cases of type 3-1 and 27 cases of type 3-2. There was no significant difference in DASH, PRWE and VAS scores among all types (P > 0.05). The results of interobserver reproducibility were kappa = 0.985, ICC = 0.984 in the first evaluation, kappa = 0.986, ICC = 0.986 in the second evaluation. The results of intraobserver reproducibility were O1 = 0.991, O2 = 0.991, O3 = 0.989 respectively. The new classification system of distal radius fracture based on CT has theoretical and practical significance for incision selection, fracture reduction and internal fixation. 123 classification system is clear, comprehensive, easy to understand and remember. Moreover, it has higher interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility than other systems reported at present.

Muscle Madness and Making a Case for Muscle-Specific Classification Systems: A Leap from Tissue Injury to Organ Injury and System Dysfunction

Despite the recent publication and subsequent clinical application of several muscle injury classification systems, none has been able to address the varying and often unique/complex types of injuries that occur in different muscles. Although there are advantages of using a unified classification, there are significant differences between certain muscles and muscle groups. These differences may complicate the clinical effectiveness of using a unified injury classification. This narrative explores the difficulties in using a single classification to describe the heterogeneous nature of muscle injuries. Within that context, the possibility of viewing muscles and muscle injuries in the same manner as other biological tissues, structures, organs, and systems is discussed. Perhaps, in addition to a unified classification, subclassifications or muscle specific classifications should be considered for certain muscles. Having a more specific (granular) approach to some of the more commonly injured muscles may prove beneficial for more accurately and effectively diagnosing and treating muscle injuries. Ideally, this will also lead to more accurate determination of the prognosis of specific muscle injuries.

Movement Analysis with Inertial Measurement Unit Sensor After Surgical Treatment for Distal Radius Fractures

Inertial measurement unit (IMU) has recently been used to evaluate a movement of a body segment to provide accurate information of movement's characteristics. IMU systems have been validated to successfully measure joint angle during upper limb range of motion (ROM). The study aimed to retrospectively evaluate, using an IMU, the ROM recovery of the wrist after surgical treatment for distal-radius fractures with Kirschner wire fixation (KWF) or with volar plate fixation (VPF) and screws. To assess pain in the wrist joint, muscle-fatigue (MF), and functional difficulties in activities of daily living, we evaluated the patients through patient-related wrist evaluation questionnaire (PRWE) scale, disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scale, Hand Grip Strength (HGS), and surface electromyography (EMG). We used a single IMU composed of three-axis gyroscope, a three-axis accelerometer, and a magnetometer. We calculated the value of ROM as a percentage with respect to the unaffected wrist. We also recorded surface-EMG signals over biceps brachialis, flexor carpi radialis (FCR), extensor carpi radialis (ECR), and pronator teres muscles. Forty patients were recruited for our study. Ulnar deviation (UD) was significantly higher for VPF than for KWF (p = 0.017); supination was significantly higher for VPF than for KWF (p = 0.031). The percentage of decay of the median frequency of FCR of volar plate was significantly higher than KWF. The HGS of KWF was significantly higher than VPF. In literature, there were no significant differences between the two types of treatment at long-term follow-up. Our results demonstrate a superior efficacy of VPF in terms of ROM improvement in UD and supination, but for these patients, muscle fatigue is greater than the KWF group. Based on the data available, VPF is similar to KWF for the treatment of distal radius fractures. The IMU sensor could be used in the future to evaluate ROM after surgery during patient's rehabilitation and to compare the effects with stratified analysis regarding age and fracture type, paralleled with cost-effectiveness analysis.

AO Distal Radius Fracture Classification: Global Perspective on Observer Agreement

Background The primary objective of this study was to test interobserver reliability when classifying fractures by consensus by AO types and groups among a large international group of surgeons. Secondarily, we assessed the difference in inter- and intraobserver agreement of the AO classification in relation to geographical location, level of training, and subspecialty. Methods A randomized set of radiographic and computed tomographic images from a consecutive series of 96 distal radius fractures (DRFs), treated between October 2010 and April 2013, was classified using an electronic web-based portal by an invited group of participants on two occasions. Results Interobserver reliability was substantial when classifying AO type A fractures but fair and moderate for type B and C fractures, respectively. No difference was observed by location, except for an apparent difference between participants from India and Australia classifying type B fractures. No statistically significant associations were observed comparing interobserver agreement by level of training and no differences were shown comparing subspecialties. Intra-rater reproducibility was "substantial" for fracture types and "fair" for fracture groups with no difference accounting for location, training level, or specialty. Conclusion Improved definition of reliability and reproducibility of this classification may be achieved using large international groups of raters, empowering decision making on which system to utilize. Level of Evidence Level III.

[LiLa classification for paediatric long bone fractures. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability]

BACKGROUND

There are two child-specific fracture classification systems for long bone fractures: the AO classification of pediatric long-bone fractures (PCCF) and the LiLa classification of pediatric fractures of long bones (LiLa classification). Both are still not widely established in comparison to the adult AO classification for long bone fractures.

METHODS

During a period of 12 months all long bone fractures in children were documented and classified according to the LiLa classification by experts and non-experts. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were calculated according to Cohen (kappa).

RESULTS

A total of 408 fractures were classified. The intraobserver reliability for location in the skeletal and bone segment showed an almost perfect agreement (K = 0.91-0.95) and also the morphology (joint/shaft fracture) (K = 0.87-0.93). Due to different judgment of the fracture displacement in the second classification round, the intraobserver reliability of the whole classification revealed moderate agreement (K = 0.53-0.58). Interobserver reliability showed moderate agreement (K = 0.55) often due to the low quality of the X-rays. Further differences occurred due to difficulties in assigning the precise transition from metaphysis to diaphysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The LiLa classification is suitable and in most cases user-friendly for classifying long bone fractures in children. Reliability is higher than in established fracture specific classifications and comparable to the AO classification of pediatric long bone fractures. Some mistakes were due to a low quality of the X-rays and some due to difficulties to classify the fractures themselves. Improvements include a more precise definition of the metaphysis and the kind of displacement. Overall the LiLa classification should still be considered as an alternative for classifying pediatric long bone fractures.

Inter- and intra-observer agreement of the AO classification for operatively treated distal radius fractures

The reproducibility of the AO classification for distal radius fractures remains a topic of debate. Previous studies showed variable reproducibility results. Important treatment decisions depend on correct classification, especially in comminuted, intra-articular fractures. Therefore, reliable reproducibility results need to be undisputedly determined. Hence, the study objective was to assess inter- and intra-observer agreement of the AO classification for operatively treated distal radius fractures. A database of 54 radiographs of all AO types (A, B and C) and groups (A_2-3, B_1-3, and C_1-3) of distal radius fractures was assessed in twofold. Likewise, a subset of 152 radiographs of solely C-type groups (C_1-3) was assessed. All fractures were classified by six observers with different experience levels: three consultant trauma surgeons, one sixth-year trauma surgery resident, a consultant trauma radiologist, and an intern with limited experienced. The inter-observer agreement of both main types and groups was moderate (κ = 0.49 resp. κ = 0.48) in combination with a good intra-observer agreement (κ = 0.68 resp. κ = 0.70). The inter-observer agreement of the subset C-type fractures group was fair (κ = 0.27) with moderate intra-observer agreement (κ = 0.43). According to these results, the reproducibility of the AO classification of main types and groups of distal radius fractures based on conventional radiographs is insufficient (κ < 0.50), especially at group level of C-type fractures.

Arthroscopic study of injuries in articular fractures of distal radius extremity

OBJECTIVE:

To analyze the incidence of wrist ligament and cartilage associated fractures of the distal radius, through arthroscopy, correlating with AO/ASIF classification.

METHODS:

Thirty patients aged between 20 and 50 years old, with closed fracture from groups B and C according to AO/ASIF classification were selected. All of them were submitted to wrist arthroscopy to address intra-articular injuries and reduction and osteosynthesis of the fracture.

RESULTS:

A high incidence of intra-articular injuries was noticed, and 76.6% of them presented injury of the triangular fibrocartilage complex, 36.6% of the intrinsic scapholunate ligament, 6.6% of the intrinsic triquetrolunate ligament, and 33% articular cartilage injury larger than three millimeters. Patients with fractures from type C according to AO/ASIF classification presented a higher incidence of ligament injuries.

CONCLUSION:

There is no relationship between the presence of chondral injury and the AO/ASIF classification of the fractures in the cases reported in this study.

Level of Evidence III, Non Randomized Controlled Trial.

Analysis of the inter- and intra-observer agreement in radiographic evaluation of wrist fractures using the multimedia messaging service

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic surgeons are often asked to evaluate X-rays of patients admitted to the Accident and Emergency Department with the suspicion of a wrist fracture or, in the case of an evident fracture, to decide the correct treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a correct interpretation of the images of injured wrists on the screen of a last generation mobile phone, in order to evaluate if the specialist could make the right diagnosis and choose the correct treatment.

METHODS

Five orthopaedic and one hand surgeons have evaluate the X-rays of 67 patients who sustained an injury to their wrist. In the case of fracture, they were asked to classify it according to the AO and Mayo classification systems. The evaluation of the images was accomplished through the PACS and using a mobile phone, at a different time. In order to check the inter- and intra-observer reliability, the same pattern was followed after a few months.

RESULTS

The mobile phone showed basically the same agreement between the observers highlighting the worsening of the inter- and intra-observer reliability with the increment of the variables considered by a classification system.

CONCLUSIONS

The present paper confirms that a last generation mobile phone can already be used in the clinical practise of orthopaedic surgeons on call who could use it as a useful device in remote or poorly served areas for a rapid and economic consultation

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

The level of evidence of this case is economic and decision analysis, level 2.

Where is the distal fracture line location of dorsally displaced distal radius fractures?

No consensus currently exists on the facture location of dorsally displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs). We present a systematic evaluation of the distal fracture line (DFL) location of DRFs and possible influencing factors. Determining the average location of DRFs provides a basis for developing more sensitive tests to determine bone strength using a variety of imaging techniques and for developing improved biomechanical models to test fracture characteristics and surgical implants. Initial radiographs of 157 DRFs dorsally displaced DRFs in patients aged 40-74 years were identified, patient and trauma specific data were collected, and standard radiographic measurements and (AO) fracture classification were performed. The dorsal and palmar DFL locations relative to the corresponding apex of the lunate facet were measured. The DFL was located dorsally 7.9 ± 2.7 mm and palmarly 11.7 ± 3.9 mm proximal to the corresponding lunate fossa apex. The dorsal DFL was significantly distal to the palmar one (p  < 0.001), but the two did not correlate (r² = 0.018, p = 0.095). DFL location was independent of age, energy of the fall, and fracture complexity.

Classificando fraturas do rádio com raio-X e tomografia

INTRODUÇÃO: Este estudo avaliou a confiabilidade interobservador da radiografia simples versus tomografia computadorizada para as classificações Universal e AO em fraturas do rádio distal. PACIENTES e MÉTODOS: Cinco observadores classificaram 21 fraturas do rádio distal utilizando radiografias e tomografias independentemente. O índice Kappa foi utilizado para estabelecer o nível de concordância entre os observadores. RESULTADOS: A confiabilidade interobservador da classificação Universal foi moderada e a confiabilidade interobservador da classificação AO foi baixa. Reduzindo a clas-sificação AO a nove categorias e às três categorias básicas houve melhora do nível de confiabilidade para "moderado". Não houve diferença entre a confiabilidade interobservador da classificação Universal baseada em imagens radiográficas em comparação com a classificação Universal baseada em imagens tomográficas. A confiabilidade interobservador da classificação AO baseada em radiografias simples foi significativamente maior que a confiabilidade interobservador da classificação AO baseada apenas em tomografias computadorizadas. CONCLUSÃO: A partir destes dados, concluímos que classificar fraturas do rádio distal utilizando tomografias computadorizadas sem o auxílio das radiografias simples não traz benefício.

Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons

Five different radiographs of distal radial fractures were classified according to the AO/ASIF, Frykman, Fernandez and Older systems by 45 observers (trauma surgeons and residents). The same panel classified the same radiographs in a different order 4 months later. Mean interobserver correlation for all cases was fair to moderate according to the Spearman rank test. However, these classifications showed poor correlation with the gold standard as classified by the senior author. All intraobserver agreements demonstrated a moderate kappa agreement (K(w)=0.52) for the AO/ASIF classification and fair for the Frykman (K(w)=0.26), Fernandez (K(w)=0.24) and Older (K(w)=0.27) classifications. When the group was divided according to years of clinical experience (<6 years; >or=6 years), there was poor correlation between experience and consistency amongst all four classifications. In view of these findings, we do not recommend use of these classifications for clinical application because of their questionable reproducibility and reliability.

A concept for the validation of fracture classifications

The fracture classification systems currently used most frequently were not developed or validated by rigorous scientific evaluation methods. This paper discusses the classification of fractures from an epidemiological and clinical decision-making perspective and proposes a standardized methodological concept for their development and scientific validation. Classification categories are clinically relevant entities that surgeons should be able to use for diagnosis with sufficient confidence to limit misclassification and associated treatment errors. The process of validation should assess the value of specific clinical information (eg, the use of radiographs or computed tomography scans) in increasing the probability of a correct diagnosis. A 3-phase validation concept is proposed where: 1) classification categories are defined and the classification process using specific diagnostic images is evaluated by experts in a series of agreement studies (reliability, accuracy, likelihood ratios); 2) a multicenter agreement study is conducted among a representative group of future users of the classification; and 3) the classification proposal is applied in the context of a prospective clinical study to assess its clinical usefulness.