medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2021, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2021; 35 (3)

Inter-observer agreement in the Paprosky classification in a hospital in a country of an emerging economy

Macedonio-García A, Rivera-Villa A, Quiroz-Williams J, Aguilera-Martínez P

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 257-260
PDF size: 157.63 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The evaluation and management of acetabular bone loss in total hip arthroplasty is a challenge for orthopedic surgeons, we wish in this study to determine the inter-observer concordance in the Paprosky classification for acetabular defects. Material and methods: Observational, descriptive, longitudinal, prospective study. It was performed using anteroposterior hip radiographs of patients scheduled for primary total hip arthroplasty or revision with acetabular bone defect, Sinapse local X-ray system, 20 X-rays were assessed per observer taken randomly (doctors assigned to the joint replacement service with minimum experience of five years) using the Paprosky classification spontaneously, (without previous classes) for acetabular defects, inter-observer concordance was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Results: An interobserver agreement was obtained on average for the Paprosky classification of acetabular defects using the Cohen's Kappa coefficient, the concordance analysis was done using the statistical program statistical package for the social sciences of 0.237. Conclusions: Both the null hypothesis (Kappa greater than 0.80 value considered optimal) and the alternative hypothesis (Kappa from 0.41 to 0.80 value equal to moderate to good) did not agree with our study (Kappa equal to 0.237) value equal to mild, in addition , it was shown that the greater the acetabular defect, the lower the interobserver agreement in surgeons in our institution.


REFERENCES

  1. Deirmengianreali GK, Zmitowski B, O'Neil JT, Hozack WJ. Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(19): 1842-52.

  2. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Proyections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from de 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4): 780-5.

  3. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91: 128-33.

  4. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, O'Rourke MR. Managing bone loss in acetabular revision. Instr Course Lect. 2006; 55: 287-97.

  5. Paprosky WG, Bradford MS, Younger TI. Classification of bone defects in failed prostheses. Chir Organi Mov. 1994; 79(4): 285-91.

  6. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994; 9: 33-44.

  7. D'Antonio JA. Periprosthetic bone loss of the acetabulum: classification and management. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992; 23: 279-90.

  8. Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Jaroszynski G, Wong P, Woodgate I, Davis A, Gross AE. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2001; 19: 50-6.

  9. Gustilo RB, Pasternak HS. Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 235: 111-9.

  10. Gross AE, Duncan CP, Garbuz D, Mohamed EM. Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum in association with loss of bone stock. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48: 57-66.

  11. Parry MC, Whitehouse MR, Mehendale SA, et al. A comparison of the validity and reliability of established bone stock loss classification systems and the proposal of a novel classification system. Hip Int. 2010; 20: 50-5.

  12. O'Rourke MR, Paprosky WG, Rosenberg AG. Use of structural allografts in acetabular revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 420: 113-21.

  13. Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I. A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18(5): 638-42.

  14. Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Esdaile J, Duncan CP. Classification systems in orthopaedics. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002; 10: 290-7.

  15. Yu R, Hofstaetter JG, Sullivan T, et al. Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(7): 2259-65.

  16. Campbell DG, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Reliability of acetabular bone defect classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16: 83-6.

  17. Davis AM, Schemitsch EH, Gollish JD, et al. Classifying failed hip arthroplasty: generalizability of reliability and validity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 415: 171-9.

  18. Sackett DL, Haynes BR, Tugwell P, Guyatt GH. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd ed. Boston: Brown and Company, 1991.

  19. Masri BA, Masterson EL, Duncan CP. The classification and radiographic evaluation of bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998; 29(2): 219-27.

  20. Telleria JJM, Gee AO. Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(119: 3725-30.

  21. Johanson NA, Driftmier KR, Cerynik DL, Stehman CC. Grading acetabular defects: the need for a universal and valid system. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(3): 425-31.



EVIDENCE LEVEL

III




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com