Berger-Groch Josephine, Thiesen Darius M, Grossterlinden Lars G, Schaewel Jan, Fensky Florian, Hartel Maximilian J
Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Orthopedics, Trauma-and Spine Surgery, Asklepios Hospital Hamburg-Altona, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 1, 22763, Hamburg, Germany.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 May;139(5):645-650. doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03123-9. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
Several different systems of classification have been developed to understand the complexity of pelvic ring fractures, to facilitate communication between physicians and to support the selection of appropriate therapeutic measures. The purpose of this study was to measure the inter- and intraobserver reliability of Tile AO, Young and Burgess, and FFP classification in pelvic ring fractures. The Rommens classification system (FFP) is analyzed for the first time.
Four reviewers (2 × senior pelvic trauma surgeon, 1 × resident, 1 × medical student) separately analyzed and classified 154 CT scans of patients with pelvic fracture. The Tile AO, the Young and Burgess, and the FFP classifications (subgroup with patients ≥ 60 years) were compared. Another blinded re-evaluation was carried out after 2 months to determine intraobserver reliability.
The overall interobserver agreement was fair for all classification systems (ICC: OTA 0.55, Young and Burgess 0.42, FFP 0.54). For specific categories, (e.g. type B or C fractures), there was a substantial agreement between the experienced surgeons (kappa: OTA 0.64, Young and Burgess 0.62, FFP 0.68). For inexperienced observers, there was a fair agreement in all systems (kappa: OTA 0.23, Young and Burgess 0.23, FFP 0.36).
All three classifications reach their maximum reliability with advanced expertise in the surgery of pelvic fractures. The novel FFP classification has proved to be at least equivalent when directly compared to the established systems. The FFP classification system showed substantial reliability in patients older than 60 years.
为了理解骨盆环骨折的复杂性、促进医生之间的交流并支持选择合适的治疗措施,已经开发了几种不同的分类系统。本研究的目的是测量Tile AO、Young和Burgess以及FFP分类在骨盆环骨折中的观察者间和观察者内可靠性。首次对Rommens分类系统(FFP)进行分析。
四位评估者(2名资深骨盆创伤外科医生、1名住院医生、1名医学生)分别对154例骨盆骨折患者的CT扫描进行分析和分类。比较了Tile AO、Young和Burgess以及FFP分类(≥60岁患者亚组)。2个月后进行了另一次盲法重新评估,以确定观察者内可靠性。
所有分类系统的总体观察者间一致性为中等(ICC:OTA为0.55,Young和Burgess为0.42,FFP为0.54)。对于特定类别(例如B型或C型骨折),经验丰富的外科医生之间有高度一致性(kappa值:OTA为0.64,Young和Burgess为0.62,FFP为0.68)。对于经验不足的观察者,所有系统的一致性为中等(kappa值:OTA为0.23,Young和Burgess为0.23,FFP为0.36)。
所有这三种分类在骨盆骨折手术方面具有先进专业知识时达到其最大可靠性。与既定系统直接比较时,新型FFP分类已证明至少相当。FFP分类系统在60岁以上患者中显示出高度可靠性。