Xue Cheng, Yang Wengbo, Rui Yunfeng, Shi Hongfei, Zheng Xingguo, Song Lijun, Li Xiang, Fang Jiahu
Department of Orthopedics, The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, 99 Huaihai West Road, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, 221000, People's Republic of China.
Department of Orthopedics, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 68 Changle Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210001, People's Republic of China.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Dec 12;145(1):8. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05633-7.
Although various classification systems have been introduced for the description of distal clavicle fractures, there is no consensus on the best classification system that is helpful in determining treatment and prognosis. The objective of this study was to establish a new classification system for distal clavicle fractures and to verify the reliability of the new classification system by evaluating the inter- and intraobserver agreement.
A total of 1075 consecutive patients with distal clavicle fractures were selected from five university-affiliated hospitals between 2012 and 2022. The distal fragment size (DFS), the coracoclavicular distance (CCD) and the acromioclavicular distance (ACD) were measured on anteroposterior radiographs of each acromioclavicular joint. Twenty independent investigators evaluated 1075 radiographs of distal clavicle fractures, completing the fracture typing according to the new classification system and selecting a treatment choice for each case. This procedure was repeated 3 months later. Fleiss κ values were calculated to estimate the inter- and intraobserver agreement.
The new classification categorizes distal clavicle fractures into three types based on the relationship between fracture location and ligament footprints. Type I fractures occur distal to the coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments with or without ligament injury. Type II fractures occur CC ligament attachment regions with ligament injury Type III fractures occur proximal to the CC ligaments without ligament injury. Several subtypes (types IA, IB, IC, ID, IIA, IIB, IIC, IID, and IIE) were further introduced according to fracture displacement and ligament integrity. The inter- and intraobserver reliability of our new classification system was substantial (κ = 0.622 vs. 0.678). Inter- and intraobserver reliability for treatment choice was perfect (κ = 0.846 vs. 0.882).
The new classification system which takes into account fracture location and ligament integrity brought few disputes in category division and treatment selection.
尽管已经引入了各种分类系统来描述锁骨远端骨折,但对于有助于确定治疗和预后的最佳分类系统尚无共识。本研究的目的是建立一种新的锁骨远端骨折分类系统,并通过评估观察者间和观察者内的一致性来验证新分类系统的可靠性。
2012年至2022年间,从五家大学附属医院连续选取了1075例锁骨远端骨折患者。在每个肩锁关节的前后位X线片上测量远端骨折块大小(DFS)、喙锁距离(CCD)和肩锁距离(ACD)。20名独立研究人员对1075张锁骨远端骨折的X线片进行评估,根据新分类系统完成骨折分型,并为每个病例选择治疗方案。3个月后重复此过程。计算Fleiss κ值以估计观察者间和观察者内的一致性。
新分类根据骨折位置与韧带附着点之间的关系将锁骨远端骨折分为三种类型。I型骨折发生在喙锁(CC)韧带远端,伴有或不伴有韧带损伤。II型骨折发生在CC韧带附着区域,伴有韧带损伤。III型骨折发生在CC韧带近端,无韧带损伤。根据骨折移位和韧带完整性进一步引入了几个亚型(IA、IB、IC、ID、IIA、IIB、IIC、IID和IIE型)。我们新分类系统的观察者间和观察者内可靠性较高(κ分别为0.622和0.678)。治疗选择的观察者间和观察者内可靠性极佳(κ分别为0.846和0.882)。
新的分类系统考虑了骨折位置和韧带完整性,在分类划分和治疗选择方面几乎没有争议。