Skip to main content
Log in

Diagnosing displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus: a review of observer studies

  • Review
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Displaced four-part fractures comprise 2–10 % of all proximal humeral fractures. The optimal treatment is unclear and randomised trials are needed. The conduct and interpretation of such trials is facilitated by a reproducible fracture classification. We aimed at quantifying observer agreement on the classification of displaced four-part fractures according to the Neer system. Published and unpublished data from five observer studies were reviewed. Observers agreed less on displaced four-part fractures than on the overall Neer classification. Mean kappa values for interobserver agreement ranged from 0.16 to 0.48. Specialists agreed slightly more than fellows and residents. Advanced imaging modalities (CT and 3D CT) seemed to contribute more to classification of displaced four-part patterns than in less complex fracture patterns. Low observer agreement may challenge the clinical approach to displaced four-part fractures and poses a problem for the interpretation and generalisation of results from future randomised trials.

Résumé

Les fractures à quatre parts représentent 2 à 10% du total des fractures de l'extrémité supérieure de l'humérus. Le traitement optimal de ces fractures n'est pas évident. Une randomisation est nécessaire. De tels essais randomisés sont possibles si l'on dispose d'une classification fiable et reproductible de ces fractures. Les données publiées ou non publiées concernant 5 études ont été examinées. Notre but était également d'évaluer la classification en fonction de l'évolution. Pour les observateurs, sur l'ensemble de cette classification, les fracture à quatre parts étaient les plus difficiles à évaluer et la consolidation moins fiable. Les observations inter observateurs sont étalées de 0,16 à 0,48 sur le plan statistique (tests Kappa), l'avis des médecins spécialistes étant légèrement différent des « fellows » et des « résidents ». L'utilisation d'un scanner et notamment d'un scanner à trois dimensions a permis semble-t-il de mieux contribuer à la classification de ces fractures. Tout ceci intervient dans l'évaluation clinique de ces patients et pose le problème de l'interprétation, des résultats pour de futures études randomisées.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bengner U, Johnell O, Redlund-Johnell I (1988) Changes in the incidence of fracture of the upper end of the humerus during a 30-year period. A study of 2125 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 231:179–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J (2006) Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:365–371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Murray D, Zuckerman JD (2005) Four-part fractures and fracture-dislocations. In: Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ (eds) Shoulder fractures. The practical guide to management. Thieme, New York, pp 295–298

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lee EW, Flatow EL (2005) Arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures, nonunions, and malunions. In: Bigliani LU, Flatow EL (eds) Shoulder arthroplasty. Springer, New York, pp 86–116

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams GR, Yamaguchi K, Ramsey ML, Galatz LM (2005) Shoulder and elbow arthroplasty. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  7. Neer CS (1955) Articular replacement for the humeral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 37A:215–228

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holbein O, Bauer G, Hoellen IP, Keppler P, Hehl G, Kinzl L (1999) Is primary endoprosthetic replacement of the humeral head an alternative treatment for comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients? Osteosynthese International 7:207–210

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kristiansen B, Kofoed H (1988) Transcutaneous reduction and external fixation of displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. A controlled clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:821–824

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stableforth PG (1984) Four-part fractures of the neck of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66:104–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zyto K, Ahrengart L, Sperber A, Tornkvist H (1997) Treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:412–417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bhandari M, Matthys G, McKee MD (2004) Four part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 18:126–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Handoll HHG, Madhok R (2001) Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1:CD000434

  14. Misra A, Kapur R, Maffulli N (2001) Complex proximal humeral fractures in adults-a systematic review of management. Injury 32:363–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tingart M, Bathis H, Bouillon B, Tiling T (2001) The displaced proximal humeral fracture: is there evidence for therapeutic concepts? Chirurg 72:1284–1291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Brorson S, Hrobjartsson A (2008) Training improves agreement among doctors using the Neer system for proximal humeral fractures in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 61:7–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gjorup T (1988) The kappa coefficient and the prevalence of a diagnosis. Methods Inf Med 27:184–186

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Svanholm H, Starklint H, Gundersen HJ, Fabricius J, Barlebo H, Olsen S (1989) Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS 97:689–698

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Brien H, Noftall F, MacMaster S, Cummings T, Landells C, Rockwood P (1995) Neer's classification system: a critical appraisal. J Trauma 38:257–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A (2002) Low agreement among 24 doctors using the Neer-classification; only moderate agreement on displacement, even between specialists. Int Orthop 26:271–273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A (2002) Improved interobserver variation after training of doctors in the Neer system. A randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:950–954

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sjöden GO, Movin T, Guntner P, Aspelin P, Ahrengart L, Ersmark H et al (1997) Poor reproducibility of classification of proximal humeral fractures. Additional CT of minor value. Acta Orthop Scand 68:239–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sjöden GO, Movin T, Aspelin P, Guntner P, Shalabi A (1999) 3D-radiographic analysis does not improve the Neer and AO classifications of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 70:325–328

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Neer CS (2002) Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:389–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Trupka A, Wiedemann E, Ruchholtz S, Brunner U, Habermeyer P, Schweiberer L (1997) Dislocated multiple fragment fractures of the head of the humerus. Does dislocation of the humeral head fragment signify a worse prognosis? Unfallchirurg 100:105–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Habermeyer P, Schweiberer L (1989) Fractures of the proximal humerus. Orthopade 18:200–207

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stig Brorson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brorson, S., Bagger, J., Sylvest, A. et al. Diagnosing displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus: a review of observer studies. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 33, 323–327 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0591-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0591-2

Keywords

Navigation