• 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

2018 年修订版 AO/OTA 股骨骨折分类的可靠性。

Reliability of the 2018 Revised Version of AO/OTA Classification for Femoral Shaft Fractures.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Surg. 2024 Oct;16(5):688-693. doi: 10.4055/cios23292. Epub 2024 Jun 7.

DOI:10.4055/cios23292
PMID:39364112
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11444943/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) classification system for diaphyseal fracture has been recently revised to refine and enhance the accuracy of fracture categorization. This study aimed to investigate the interobserver reliability of the new AO/OTA classification and to compare it with the older version in femoral shaft fractures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 139 patients (mean age, 43.8 ± 19.5 years; 92 men and 47 women) with femoral shaft fractures who were treated from 2003 to 2017. Four well-trained observers independently classified each fracture following the previous and revised AO/OTA classification system. We calculated the Fleiss kappa for the interobserver reliability.

RESULTS

The previous classification showed the kappa value of 0.580 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.547-0.613), and the revised version showed 0.528 (95% CI, 0.504-0.552). Both the old and the revised versions showed moderate reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the moderate interobserver reliability of both the previous and new AO/OTA classification systems for diaphyseal femur fractures. These findings emphasize the importance of standardized systems in clinical decision-making and underscore the need for ongoing education and collaboration to enhance fracture classification.

摘要

背景

Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen(AO)和 Orthopaedic Trauma Association(OTA)的骨干骨折分类系统最近进行了修订,以提高骨折分类的准确性。本研究旨在探讨新的 AO/OTA 分类的观察者间可靠性,并将其与股骨干骨折的旧版进行比较。

方法

我们回顾性分析了 2003 年至 2017 年期间治疗的 139 例股骨干骨折患者(平均年龄 43.8±19.5 岁;92 名男性和 47 名女性)。4 名训练有素的观察者分别按照旧版和新版 AO/OTA 分类系统对每个骨折进行分类。我们计算了观察者间可靠性的 Fleiss kappa 值。

结果

旧版分类的 kappa 值为 0.580(95%置信区间[CI],0.547-0.613),修订版为 0.528(95%CI,0.504-0.552)。旧版和新版均显示出中度可靠性。

结论

我们的研究强调了旧版和新版 AO/OTA 骨干骨折分类系统的观察者间可靠性为中度。这些发现强调了标准化系统在临床决策中的重要性,并突出了需要不断进行教育和协作以提高骨折分类的必要性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cafe/11444943/2a8684230a16/cios-16-688-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cafe/11444943/1913f385167b/cios-16-688-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cafe/11444943/53629b6a3c4e/cios-16-688-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cafe/11444943/2a8684230a16/cios-16-688-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cafe/11444943/1913f385167b/cios-16-688-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cafe/11444943/53629b6a3c4e/cios-16-688-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cafe/11444943/2a8684230a16/cios-16-688-g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Reliability of the 2018 Revised Version of AO/OTA Classification for Femoral Shaft Fractures.2018 年修订版 AO/OTA 股骨骨折分类的可靠性。
Clin Orthop Surg. 2024 Oct;16(5):688-693. doi: 10.4055/cios23292. Epub 2024 Jun 7.
2
Femoral fracture classification in the Swedish Fracture Register - a validity study.瑞典骨折登记处的股骨骨折分类 - 一项有效性研究。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 May 8;20(1):197. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2579-z.
3
Intraobserver and interobserver reliability assessment of tibial plateau fracture classification systems.胫骨平台骨折分类系统的观察者内和观察者间可靠性评估。
Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2017 Dec;28(3):177-81. doi: 10.5606/ehc.2017.56816.
4
Reliability and reproducibility of the new AO/OTA 2018 classification system for proximal humeral fractures: a comparison of three different classification systems.新型 AO/OTA 2018 肱骨近端骨折分类系统的可靠性和可重复性:三种不同分类系统的比较。
J Orthop Traumatol. 2020 Mar 12;21(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s10195-020-0543-1.
5
Reliability and Reproducibility of the OTA/AO Classification for Humeral Shaft Fractures.肱骨骨干骨折OTA/AO分类的可靠性和可重复性
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Mar;31(3):e75-e80. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000738.
6
Clinical Evaluation of Femoral Head Fractures: Which Classification Systems Have the Best Universality, Reliability, and Reproducibility?临床评估股骨头骨折:哪些分类系统具有最佳的普遍性、可靠性和可重复性?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Jan 1;482(1):76-86. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002731. Epub 2023 Jun 16.
7
Femoral neck fracture: the reliability of radiologic classifications.股骨颈骨折:影像学分类的可靠性。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Jan 25;22(Suppl 2):1063. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05007-3.
8
Reliability of the classification of proximal femur fractures: Does clinical experience matter?股骨近端骨折分类的可靠性:临床经验重要吗?
Injury. 2018 Apr;49(4):819-823. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.02.023. Epub 2018 Mar 15.
9
Gunshot femoral shaft fractures: is the current classification system reliable?枪伤所致股骨干骨折:当前的分类系统可靠吗?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Mar(408):101-9. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200303000-00011.
10
Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the 2018 AO/OTA classification for high-energy pelvic ring injuries: A retrospective study.2018AO/OTA 高能骨盆环损伤分类的观察者间和观察者内可靠性评估:一项回顾性研究。
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 Oct;107(6):102999. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102999. Epub 2021 Jun 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Application of TINAVI orthopedic robot-assisted proximal interlocking screw placement for femoral retrograde intramedullary nails: a retrospective clinical study.TINAVI骨科机器人辅助股骨逆行髓内钉近端交锁螺钉置入的应用:一项回顾性临床研究
J Robot Surg. 2025 Sep 13;19(1):599. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02787-3.
2
The Sonographic Evaluation of Abductor Injury After Intramedullary Nailing for the Hip Fractures.髋部骨折髓内钉固定术后外展肌损伤的超声评估
J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 5;14(15):5498. doi: 10.3390/jcm14155498.

本文引用的文献

1
Risk Factors Associated with Fixation Failure in Intertrochanteric Fracture Treated with Cephalomedullary Nail.与采用髓内钉治疗的股骨转子间骨折固定失败相关的危险因素。
Hip Pelvis. 2023 Sep;35(3):193-199. doi: 10.5371/hp.2023.35.3.193. Epub 2023 Sep 6.
2
Radiographic outcomes of the treatment of complex femoral shaft fractures (AO/OTA 32-C) with intramedullary nailing: a retrospective analysis of different techniques.髓内钉治疗复杂股骨干骨折(AO/OTA32-C)的影像学结果:不同技术的回顾性分析。
J Int Med Res. 2022 Jun;50(6):3000605221103974. doi: 10.1177/03000605221103974.
3
Inter- and intraobserver agreement of three classification systems for lateral clavicle fractures - reliability comparison between two specialist groups.
三种锁骨外侧端骨折分类系统的观察者间及观察者内一致性——两个专业组之间的可靠性比较
Patient Saf Surg. 2020 Jan 7;14:4. doi: 10.1186/s13037-019-0228-y. eCollection 2020.
4
Radiologic Outcomes of Intramedullary Nailing in Infraisthmal Femur-Shaft Fracture with or without Poller Screws.骨干-骨干下段股骨骨折髓内钉固定术的放射学结果:带或不带 Poller 螺钉。
Biomed Res Int. 2019 May 8;2019:9412379. doi: 10.1155/2019/9412379. eCollection 2019.
5
Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018.《骨折与脱位分类汇编 - 2018》
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32 Suppl 1:S1-S170. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063.
6
Reliability and Reproducibility of the OTA/AO Classification for Humeral Shaft Fractures.肱骨骨干骨折OTA/AO分类的可靠性和可重复性
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Mar;31(3):e75-e80. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000738.
7
Interobserver and intraobserver reliability assessment of calcaneal fracture classification systems.跟骨骨折分类系统的观察者间和观察者内可靠性评估。
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014 Jan-Feb;53(1):47-51. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2013.06.004. Epub 2013 Aug 28.
8
Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.非典型股骨转子下和骨干骨折:美国骨与矿物质研究学会特别工作组的第二次报告
J Bone Miner Res. 2014 Jan;29(1):1-23. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.1998. Epub 2013 Oct 1.
9
How reliable and accurate is the AO/OTA comprehensive classification for adult long-bone fractures?成人长骨骨折的 AO/OTA 综合分类的可靠性和准确性如何?
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Jul;73(1):224-31. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31824cf0ab.
10
Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications.评定者间一致性和评定者间信度:关键概念、方法和应用。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 May-Jun;9(3):330-8. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004. Epub 2012 Jun 12.