Interobserver variation using the AO/ASIF classification of long bone fractures

Johnstone, David; Radford, Warwick; Parnell, Evette

doi:10.1016/0020-1383(93)90282-b

Cited by 53 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a multi-layer classification scheme it is expected that the agreement rates decrease in subsequent levels, as observed for the AO classification of peripheral fractures [1,2,3,5,10,11,13,14,20,21,27,29,31]. This does not seem to be the case in the classification scheme we studied.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classification of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: problems of reproducibility

Oner¹,

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…1 Essential characteristics of the three injury types according to Magerl et al [14]. Type A: compression injury of the anterior column; type B: two column injury with transverse disruption; type C: two column injury with superimposed rotation MRI would result in a better agreement about the type categorization of the fractures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: problems of reproducibility

Oner¹,

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although their reliability was questioned [9,15], definitions of unstable fracture were fairly similar with regard to the lack of medial support. The reported percentage of unstable fractures was the best measure available for this review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices

Audigé

Hanson

Swiontkowski

2003

International Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The choice between dynamic screw-intramedullary nail (DSIN) devices and dynamic screw-plate (DSP) devices for the fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures remains controversial. This study presents a meta-analysis of fixation failures in unstable trochanteric femoral fractures using DSP devices or DSIN devices. Two independent assessors selected randomised controlled trials using a range of electronic databases, as well as reference lists of selected articles. A study quality checklist was used. The occurrence of fixation failure, in particular cut-out, was the primary subject of analysis using descriptive statistics and random-effect meta-analyses. Seventeen trials were identified. Meta-analyses showed no significant difference in the frequency of implant-related complications between the two types of devices. Iatrogenic femoral fractures associated with the use of DSIN devices represent a rare, but persistent, risk. There was a tendency for less frequent cut-out with intramedullary devices compared with DSP devices.Résumé Le choix entre clou centro-médullaire avec vis dynamique et vis-plaque dynamique pour la fixation des fractures trochantériennes instables reste controversé. Cette étude présente une méta-analyse d'échecs de la fixation des fractures trochantériennes instables utilisant ces deux procédés. Deux observateurs indépendants ont selectioné des études cliniques randomisées utilisant plusieurs bases de données électroniques, aussi bien que les listes de référence des articles sélectionnés. Une liste de contrôle de la qualité de l'étude a été utilisée. L'événe-ment d'échec de la fixation, en particulier la protrusion articulaire, était le sujet fondamental d'analyse. Dix-sept études cliniques randomisées ont été identifiées. La méta-analyse n'a montré aucune différence notable dans la fréquence des complications liées à l'implant entre les deux types de matériel. Les fractures fémorales iatrogène associées à l'usage de matériel centro-médullaire repré-sentent un risque rare, mais persistant. Il y avait une tendance à des protrusions articulaires moins fréquents avec le système intramédullaire comparé avec les vis-plaque dynamiques.

show abstract

“…Johnstone et al (1993) reported a small series of patients with poor interobserver reliability of the A 0 classification, regardless of the observers' experience. Andersen et al (1996) also reported poor interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility when using the detailed A 0 classification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

AO and Frykman's classifications of Colles' fracture: No prognostic value in 652 patients evaluated after 5 years

Flinkkilä¹,

Raatikainen²,

Hämäläinen³

1998

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interobserver variation using the AO/ASIF classification of long bone fractures

Cited by 53 publications

References 1 publication

Classification of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: problems of reproducibility

Classification of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: problems of reproducibility

Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices

AO and Frykman's classifications of Colles' fracture: No prognostic value in 652 patients evaluated after 5 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About