Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2022; 57(06): 917-923
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740471
Artigo Original
Mão

Avaliação da reprodutibilidade intra- e interobservador da nova classificação AO/OTA para fraturas distais do rádio comparada com a classificação de Fernandez

Article in several languages: português | English
Beatriz Canhoto Carula 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
2   Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Giana Silveira Giostri 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Fabiana Bebber 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Marianna Fergutz dos S. Batista 
2   Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Flaviana Busignani da Silva 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Eduardo Murilo Novak 
1   Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
› Author Affiliations Suporte Financeiro A presente pesquisa não recebeu nenhum financiamento específico de agências de financiamento dos setores público, comercial ou sem fins lucrativos.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a confiabilidade e a reprodutibilidade inter- e intraobservadores da nova classificação AO/OTA 2018 para fraturas distais do rádio e compará-la com o sistema classificatório de Fernandez.

Métodos Foi aplicado um questionário no software Qualtrics em 10 especialistas em cirurgia da mão que classificaram 50 radiografias de fraturas distais de rádio de acordo com as classificações de Fernandez e AO/OTA 2018 e, posteriormente, indicaram seu tratamento. Esse questionário foi aplicado em tempo T0 e repetido após 4 semanas (t1). Analisou-se a média de concordância entre as respostas e confiabilidade e reprodutibilidade inter- e intraobservadores utilizando os índices kappa.

Resultados A concordância média interobservador para a classificação de Fernandez foi de 76,4, e de 59,2% para a AO/OTA 2018. A concordância intraobservador foi de 77,3 e 56,6%, respectivamente. O índice de kappa inter- e intraobservador para a classificação de Fernandez foram de 0,57 e de 0,55, respectivamente, e a classificação AO/OTA 2018 obteve 0,34 e 0,31, respectivamente.

Conclusão A classificação AO/OTA 2018 mostrou uma reprodutibilidade intra- e interobservadores baixa quando comparada à classificação de Fernandez. Porém, ambas as classificações apresentam índices intra- e interobservadores baixos. Embora a classificação de Fernandez não tenha obtido resultados excelentes, ela permanece com melhor concordância para o uso rotineiro.

Palavras-chave

fraturas do rádio/classificação - traumatismos do punho - reprodutibilidade dos testes - inquéritos e questionários

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 23 April 2021

Accepted: 13 August 2021

Article published online:
26 September 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Tenório PHM, Vieira MM, Alberti A, Abreu MFM, Nakamoto JC, Cliquet A. Evaluation of intra- and interobserver reliability of the AO classification for wrist fractures. Rev Bras Ortop 2018; 53 (06) 703-706
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Wæver D, Madsen ML, Rölfing JHD. et al. Distal radius fractures are difficult to classify. Injury 2018; 49 (Suppl. 01) S29-S32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Plant CE, Hickson C, Hedley H, Parsons NR, Costa ML. Is it time to revisit the AO classification of fractures of the distal radius? Inter- and intra-observer reliability of the AO classification. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (06) 818-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Naqvi SG, Reynolds T, Kitsis C. Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the Fernandez classification for distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009; 34 (04) 483-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alffram PA, Bauer GC. Epidemiology of fractures of the forearm. A biomechanical investigation of bone strength. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1962; 44-A: 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brogan DM, Richard MJ, Ruch D, Kakar S. Management of Severely Comminuted Distal Radius Fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40 (09) 1905-1914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shehovych A, Salar O, Meyer C, Ford DJ. Adult distal radius fractures classification systems: essential clinical knowledge or abstract memory testing?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016; 98 (08) 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Arora R, Gabl M, Gschwentner M, Deml C, Krappinger D, Lutz M. A comparative study of clinical and radiologic outcomes of unstable colles type distal radius fractures in patients older than 70 years: nonoperative treatment versus volar locking plating. J Orthop Trauma 2009; 23 (04) 237-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Meinberg EG, Agel J, Roberts CS, Karam MD, Kellam JF. Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018. J Orthop Trauma 2018; 32 (Suppl. 01) S1-S170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kanakaris NK, Lasanianos NG. Distal Radial Fractures. In: Lasanianos NG, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PV. editors. Trauma and Orthopaedic Classifications. New York: Springer; 2014: 95-105
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Jayakumar P, Teunis T, Giménez BB, Verstreken F, Di Mascio L, Jupiter JB. AO Distal Radius Fracture Classification: Global Perspective on Observer Agreement. J Wrist Surg 2017; 6 (01) 46-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lee DY, Park YJ, Park JS. A Meta-analysis of Studies of Volar Locking Plate Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures: Conventional versus Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis. Clin Orthop Surg 2019; 11 (02) 208-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Melone Jr CP. Articular fractures of the distal radius. Orthop Clin North Am 1984; 15 (02) 217-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fernandez DL. Distal radius fracture: the rationale of a classification. Chir Main 2001; 20 (06) 411-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cooney WP. Fractures of the distal radius. A modern treatment-based classification. Orthop Clin North Am 1993; 24 (02) 211-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J. et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21 (10, Suppl) S1-S133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Illarramendi A, González Della Valle A, Segal E, De Carli P, Maignon G, Gallucci G. Evaluation of simplified Frykman and AO classifications of fractures of the distal radius. Assessment of interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Int Orthop 1998; 22 (02) 111-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Koval K, Haidukewych GJ, Service B, Zirgibel BJ. Controversies in the management of distal radius fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22 (09) 566-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Thurston AJ. ‘Ao’ or eponyms: the classification of wrist fractures. ANZ J Surg 2005; 75 (05) 347-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Porrino Jr JA, Maloney E, Scherer K, Mulcahy H, Ha AS, Allan C. Fracture of the distal radius: epidemiology and premanagement radiographic characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203 (03) 551-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Yinjie Y, Gen W, Hongbo W. et al. A retrospective evaluation of reliability and reproducibility of Arbeitsgemeinschaftfür Osteosynthesefragen classification and Fernandez classification for distal radius fracture. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99 (02) e18508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Martin JS, Marsh JL, Bonar SK, DeCoster TA, Found EM, Brandser EA. Assessment of the AO/ASIF fracture classification for the distal tibia. J Orthop Trauma 1997; 11 (07) 477-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Randolph JJ. Online Kappa Calculator [Computer software]. 2008 Available from: http://justus.randolph.name/kappa
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 van Leerdam RH, Souer JS, Lindenhovius AL, Ring DC. Agreement between Initial Classification and Subsequent Reclassification of Fractures of the Distal Radius in a Prospective Cohort Study. Hand (N Y) 2010; 5 (01) 68-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Belloti JC, Tamaoki MJ, Franciozi CE. et al. Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement. Sao Paulo Med J 2008; 126 (03) 180-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kleinlugtenbelt YV, Groen SR, Ham SJ. et al. Classification systems for distal radius fractures. Acta Orthop 2017; 88 (06) 681-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mulders MA, Rikli D, Goslings JC, Schep NW. Classification and treatment of distal radius fractures: a survey among orthopaedic trauma surgeons and residents. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2017; 43 (02) 239-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar