Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):543-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.01.012. Epub 2011 Mar 30.
Several classification schemes have been proposed for cuff tear arthropathy and used for scientific and clinical purposes, even though their reliability has not been established and compared as of yet.
Two observers (O1 and O2) twice independently classified 52 shoulder radiographs into the cuff arthropathy schemes of Favard, Visotsky-Seebauer, Hamada, and Sirveaux. The schemes of Samilson and Prieto as well as Kellgren and Lawrence, commonly used for osteoarthritis of the shoulder, were also used for comparison. Reliability was tested with the κ coefficient.
The intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were 0.812 for O1, 0.710 for O2, and 0.305 for O1 versus O2 for the Favard classification; 0.868, 0.583, and 0.551, respectively, for the Visotsky-Seebauer classification; 1.000, 0.491, and 0.407, respectively, for the Hamada classification; and 0.852, 0.602, and 0.598, respectively, for the Sirveaux classification. For comparison, the Samilson-Prieto classification reached 0.815, 0.710, and 0.507, respectively, and the Kellgren-Lawrence scheme reached 0.815, 0.713, and 0.430, respectively.
Of the classification schemes tested, the Sirveaux classification displayed the best reliability overall. The Sirveaux classification only respects alterations of the glenoid, however. Among the schemes respecting both the glenoid and the humerus, the Hamada and Visotsky-Seebauer schemes showed similar reliability compared with the Samilson-Prieto and Kellgren-Lawrence systems, whereas the Favard classification was not as reliable. We therefore recommend the Visotsky-Seebauer or Hamada classification scheme.
已经提出了几种用于肩袖撕裂性关节病的分类方案，并用于科学和临床目的，尽管尚未对其可靠性进行建立和比较。
两位观察者（O1 和 O2）两次独立地将 52 张肩部 X 光片分类为 Favard、Visotsky-Seebauer、Hamada 和 Sirveaux 的肩袖关节病分类方案。Samilson 和 Prieto 以及 Kellgren 和 Lawrence 的分类方案也常用于肩部骨关节炎的比较。使用 κ 系数测试可靠性。
Favard 分类的观察者内和观察者间可靠性分别为 O1 的 0.812、O2 的 0.710 和 O1 与 O2 的 0.305；Visotsky-Seebauer 分类的观察者内和观察者间可靠性分别为 0.868、0.583 和 0.551；Hamada 分类的观察者内和观察者间可靠性分别为 1.000、0.491 和 0.407；Sirveaux 分类的观察者内和观察者间可靠性分别为 0.852、0.602 和 0.598。相比之下，Samilson-Prieto 分类的可靠性分别为 0.815、0.710 和 0.507，Kellgren-Lawrence 方案的可靠性分别为 0.815、0.713 和 0.430。
在所测试的分类方案中，Sirveaux 分类总体上显示出最佳的可靠性。然而，Sirveaux 分类仅尊重盂唇的改变。在尊重盂唇和肱骨头的方案中，Hamada 和 Visotsky-Seebauer 方案与 Samilson-Prieto 和 Kellgren-Lawrence 系统相比具有相似的可靠性，而 Favard 分类则不太可靠。因此，我们推荐使用 Visotsky-Seebauer 或 Hamada 分类方案。
