• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Schatzker、AO和Luo分类法对胫骨平台骨折的观察者间及观察者内可靠性

INTER- AND INTRA-OBSERVER RELIABILITY OF SCHATZKER, AO, AND LUO CLASSIFICATIONS FOR TIBIAL PLATEAU FRACTURES.

作者信息

Alencar Jonatas Brito DE, Souza Clodoaldo JosÉ Duarte DE, Coelho Pedro Rafael Reis, Freitas Pedro Gomes DE, Lopes MÁrcio Bezerra Gadelha, Pinto Francisco JosÉ Maia

机构信息

Instituto Dr. José Frota, Orthopedics and Traumatology Service, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.

Hospital Geral de Fortaleza, Orthopedics and Traumatology Service, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.

出版信息

Acta Ortop Bras. 2020 Sep-Oct;28(5):216-220. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220202805228092.

DOI:10.1590/1413-785220202805228092
PMID:33144835
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7580299/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To verify inter- and intra-observer agreement of three classification systems for tibial plateau fractures - Schatzker, AO/ASIF, and Luo's - among orthopedic surgery residents.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted with 29 observers. Radiographic and tomographic imaging of the knee of 15 patients presenting with fractures were evaluated. After six weeks, the test was reapplied. The level of agreement was calculated by the Kappa index.

RESULTS

In test 1, inter-observer agreement of all residents, according to the Kappa index, for Schatzker classification was 0.226, for AO 0.431, and Luo's 0.319. In test 2, values were 0.316, 0.333, and 0.347, respectively ( < 0.001). Regarding intra-observer analysis, the mean Kappa indexes of 1-year residents were: Schatzker, 0.20; AO, 0.32; and Luo's, 0.3. For 2-year residents, means were: 0.51, 0.58, and 0.38, respectively. As for 3-year, results were 0.42, 0.42, and 0.41, respectively ( < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

AO/ASIF showed a better reproducibility than other classifications, with substantial inter- and intra-observer agreement. We also found a stronger agreement among 2- and 3-year residents.

摘要

目的

验证骨科住院医师对胫骨平台骨折的三种分类系统(Schatzker、AO/ASIF和罗氏分类法)在观察者间和观察者内的一致性。

方法

本横断面研究纳入了29名观察者。对15例骨折患者的膝关节进行了X线和断层扫描成像评估。六周后,重复进行测试。通过Kappa指数计算一致性水平。

结果

在测试1中,根据Kappa指数,所有住院医师对Schatzker分类法的观察者间一致性为0.226,对AO分类法为0.431,对罗氏分类法为0.319。在测试2中,相应的值分别为0.316、0.333和0.347(<0.001)。关于观察者内分析,1年住院医师的平均Kappa指数分别为:Schatzker分类法0.20;AO分类法0.32;罗氏分类法0.3。2年住院医师的平均值分别为:0.51、0.58和0.38。3年住院医师的结果分别为0.42、0.42和0.41(<0.001)。

结论

AO/ASIF分类法比其他分类法具有更好的可重复性,在观察者间和观察者内具有较高的一致性。我们还发现2年和3年住院医师之间的一致性更强。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/328b/7580299/17818f67e699/1809-4406-aob-28-05-216-gf3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/328b/7580299/0626fcb84e6b/1809-4406-aob-28-05-216-gf1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/328b/7580299/c8c34b570d54/1809-4406-aob-28-05-216-gf2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/328b/7580299/17818f67e699/1809-4406-aob-28-05-216-gf3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/328b/7580299/0626fcb84e6b/1809-4406-aob-28-05-216-gf1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/328b/7580299/c8c34b570d54/1809-4406-aob-28-05-216-gf2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/328b/7580299/17818f67e699/1809-4406-aob-28-05-216-gf3.jpg

相似文献

1
INTER- AND INTRA-OBSERVER RELIABILITY OF SCHATZKER, AO, AND LUO CLASSIFICATIONS FOR TIBIAL PLATEAU FRACTURES.Schatzker、AO和Luo分类法对胫骨平台骨折的观察者间及观察者内可靠性
Acta Ortop Bras. 2020 Sep-Oct;28(5):216-220. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220202805228092.
2
Interobserver reliability of the Schatzker and Luo classification systems for tibial plateau fractures.Schatzker和Luo胫骨平台骨折分类系统的观察者间可靠性
Injury. 2016 Apr;47(4):944-9. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.12.022. Epub 2016 Jan 2.
3
Ten-Segment Classification has Lowest Inter/Intra-Observer Reliability as Compared to Schatzker, Three-Column and AO Systems for Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Comparison Based on Surgeons' Experience.与Schatzker、三柱和AO系统相比,十段分类法在胫骨平台骨折的观察者间/观察者内可靠性最低:基于外科医生经验的比较。
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2023;11(4):256-261. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2022.63442.3061.
4
The AO classification system for tibial plateau fractures: An independent inter and intraobserver agreement study.AO 胫骨平台骨折分类系统:一项独立的组内和组间观察者一致性研究。
Injury. 2023 Nov;54 Suppl 6:110741. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.04.028.
5
Inter-observer reliability assessment of the Schatzker, AO/OTA and three-column classification of tibial plateau fractures.Schatzker、AO/OTA分型及胫骨平台骨折三柱分型的观察者间可靠性评估
J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2013 Sep 11;7(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1752-2897-7-7.
6
Inter- and intra-observer variation of the Schatzker and AO/OTA classifications of tibial plateau fractures and a proposal of a new classification system.胫骨平台骨折的Schatzker和AO/OTA分类在观察者间及观察者内的差异以及一种新分类系统的提议
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007 May;89(4):400-4. doi: 10.1308/003588407X187667.
7
Intra- and inter-observer reliability assessment of widely used classifications and the "Ten-segment classification" of tibial plateau fractures.广泛使用的分类法和胫骨平台骨折的“十段分类法”的观察者内和观察者间可靠性评估。
Knee. 2022 Mar;35:149-156. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2022.03.002. Epub 2022 Mar 18.
8
Reliability of a four-column classification for tibial plateau fractures.胫骨平台骨折四柱分类法的可靠性
Int Orthop. 2017 Sep;41(9):1881-1886. doi: 10.1007/s00264-017-3543-x. Epub 2017 Jul 7.
9
A systematic literature review of tibial plateau fractures: What classifications are used and how reliable and useful are they?胫骨平台骨折的系统文献综述:使用了哪些分类方法,它们的可靠性和实用性如何?
Injury. 2018 Mar;49(3):473-490. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.01.025. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
10
Are 3D-printed Models of Tibial Plateau Fractures a Useful Addition to Understanding Fractures for Junior Surgeons?胫骨平台骨折的 3D 打印模型对青年医生理解骨折有帮助吗?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Jun 1;480(6):1170-1177. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002137. Epub 2022 Feb 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Diagnostic Predictors of Recovery Outcomes Following Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Retrospective Study Based on the Schatzker Classification.胫骨平台骨折切开复位内固定术后恢复结果的诊断预测因素:一项基于Schatzker分类的回顾性研究
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 May 22;15(11):1304. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15111304.
2
Intrarater and Inter-rater Reliability of Tibial Plateau Fracture Classifications: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.胫骨平台骨折分类的评估者内和评估者间可靠性:系统评价与荟萃分析
JB JS Open Access. 2024 Oct 3;9(4). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00181. eCollection 2024 Oct-Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Tibial plateau fracture management: arthroscopically-assisted versus ORIF procedure - clinical and radiological comparison.胫骨平台骨折的治疗:关节镜辅助与切开复位内固定手术——临床与影像学比较
Injury. 2017 Nov;48 Suppl 5:S61-S64. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30742-8.
2
A review of the management of tibial plateau fractures.胫骨平台骨折的治疗综述。
Musculoskelet Surg. 2018 Aug;102(2):119-127. doi: 10.1007/s12306-017-0514-8. Epub 2017 Oct 17.
3
Treatment strategy for tibial plateau fractures: an update.胫骨平台骨折的治疗策略:最新进展
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(5):225-232. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000031. eCollection 2016 May.
4
Tibial Plateau Fracture Characteristics: Computed Tomography Mapping of Lateral, Medial, and Bicondylar Fractures.胫骨平台骨折特征:外侧、内侧和双髁骨折的计算机断层扫描图谱。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Sep 16;97(18):1512-20. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00866.
5
Population-Based Epidemiology of Tibial Plateau Fractures.基于人群的胫骨平台骨折流行病学研究
Orthopedics. 2015 Sep;38(9):e780-6. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20150902-55.
6
Epidemiological study on tibial plateau fractures at a level I trauma center.一级创伤中心胫骨平台骨折的流行病学研究
Acta Ortop Bras. 2013 Mar;21(2):109-15. doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522013000200008.
7
Three-column fixation for complex tibial plateau fractures.三柱固定治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折。
J Orthop Trauma. 2010 Nov;24(11):683-92. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181d436f3.
8
Injury severity assessment in tibial plateau fractures.胫骨平台骨折的损伤严重程度评估
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Jun(423):85-92. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000132626.13539.4b.
9
AO or Schatzker? How reliable is classification of tibial plateau fractures?AO分型还是Schatzker分型?胫骨平台骨折的分类有多可靠?
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Oct;123(8):396-8. doi: 10.1007/s00402-003-0573-1. Epub 2003 Aug 12.
10
Radiographic fracture assessments: which ones can we reliably make?影像学骨折评估:哪些评估结果是我们能够可靠得出的?
J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Aug;14(6):379-85. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200008000-00001.