Does Computed Tomography Improve Reproducibility in the Classification of Transtrochanteric Fractures?^[∗]

Abstract

With the aging of the population, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of hip fractures, with high mortality rates, sequelae and expenses. Understanding the fracture profile and classifying it correctly is critical to define the appropriate treatment. Several radiographic classifications have been developed for transtrochanteric fractures, such as Tronzo, Evans-Jensen, AO and Boyd-Griffin, but their reproducibility is not always satisfactory. The present review aimed to elucidate whether the addition of computed tomography (CT) implies a greater reproducibility than simple radiography in the classification of transtrochanteric fractures, and whether this is a better examination to identify the fracture trait. A search was conducted in the PubMed, Lilacs, Scielo and Cochrane databases between July 2016 and June 2017, limited to the last 15 years. All retrospective, prospective and systematic reviews articles published in the English language, with evaluation of men and/or women, were considered for review. We have excluded case reports, studies that evaluated tomography or radiographs in isolation, and duplicate studies. The research presented 112 articles, of which 5 contemplated the proposed criteria. Reproducibility for the classification of transtrochanteric fractures presented variable results and was influenced by factors such as the type of classification, the use of the simplified or complete classification, the specialty of the evaluator, his experience, and the methodology proposed by the works. There are indications that there is benefit for the use of CT, especially for fractures considered unstable, but its use as a tool to ensure better reproducibility (intra- and interobserver) remains controversial and needs further studies.

Keywords

hip fractures/classification - validation studies - tomography x-ray computed - radiography

^∗ Work performed at the Hip Group, Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

• Referências

• 1 Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P. Classification AO des fractures. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1987
• 2 Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Lutchman L, Chirodian N. Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury 2002; 33 (08) 713-715
• 3 Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res 2007; 22 (03) 465-475
• 4 Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M, Mayr E, Stöckle U, Füchtmeier B. Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip--Blade vs screw. Injury 2010; 41 (12) 1292-1296
• 5 Andruszkow H, Frink M, Frömke C. , et al. Tip apex distance, hip screw placement, and neck shaft angle as potential risk factors for cut-out failure of hip screws after surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (11) 2347-2354
• 6 Parker M, Johansen A. Hip fracture. BMJ 2006; 333 (7557): 27-30
• 7 Hip fracture: management. Guidance and guidelines | NICE [acesso em 9 fevereiro, 2018]. Disponível em: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg124
• 8 Tronzo RG. Symposium on fractures of the hip. Special considerations in management. Orthop Clin North Am 1974; 5 (03) 571-583
• 9 Yang S, Liu Y, Yang T, Zou J, Yang H. Early Clinical Efficacy Comparison Study of Gamma3 Nail, Percutaneous Compression Plate (PCCP) and Femoral Head Replacement (FHR) Treatment on Senile Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures. J Invest Surg 2018; 31 (02) 130-135
• 10 Shin YS, Chae JE, Kang TW, Han SB. Prospective randomized study comparing two cephalomedullary nails for elderly intertrochanteric fractures: Zimmer natural nail versus proximal femoral nail antirotation II. Injury 2017; 48 (07) 1550-1557
• 11 Koval KJ, Oh CK, Egol KA. Does a traction-internal rotation radiograph help to better evaluate fractures of the proximal femur?. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2008; 66 (02) 102-106
• 12 Palm H, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Gebuhr P. ; Hip Fracture Study Group. Integrity of the lateral femoral wall in intertrochanteric hip fractures: an important predictor of a reoperation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (03) 470-475
• 13 Fung W, Jonsson A, Buhren V, Bhandari M. Classifying intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur: does experience matter?. Med Princ Pract 2007; 16 (03) 198-202
• 14 Boyd H, Griffin L. Classification and treatment of trochanteric fracture. Arch Surg 1949; 58 (06) 553-566
• 15 Jensen JS. Classification of trochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 1980; 51 (05) 803-810
• 16 Evans EM. The treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1949; 31B [phone]
• 17 Jin WJ, Dai LY, Cui YM, Zhou Q, Jiang LS, Lu H. Reliability of classification systems for intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur in experienced orthopaedic surgeons. Injury 2005; 36 (07) 858-861
• 18 Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van Vugt AB. Reliability of the AO/ASIF classification for pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 2001; 72 (01) 36-41
• 19 Urrutia J, Zamora T, Besa P, Zamora M, Schweitzer D, Klaber I. Inter and intra-observer agreement evaluation of the AO and the Tronzo classification systems of fractures of the trochanteric area. Injury 2015; 46 (06) 1054-1058
• 20 Cavaignac E, Lecoq M, Ponsot A. , et al. CT scan does not improve the reproducibility of trochanteric fracture classification: a prospective observational study of 53 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (01) 46-51
• 21 van Embden D, Rhemrev SJ, Meylaerts SA, Roukema GR. The comparison of two classifications for trochanteric femur fractures: the AO/ASIF classification and the Jensen classification. Injury 2010; 41 (04) 377-381
• 22 Zwipp H, Amlang M. [Treatment of fractures of the ankle in the elderly]. Orthopade 2014; 43 (04) 332-338
• 23 Haapamaki VV, Kiuru MJ, Koskinen SK. Ankle and foot injuries: analysis of MDCT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183 (03) 615-622
• 24 Chan PS, Klimkiewicz JJ, Luchetti WT. , et al. Impact of CT scan on treatment plan and fracture classification of tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1997; 11 (07) 484-489
• 25 Mustonen AO, Koskinen SK, Kiuru MJ. Acute knee trauma: analysis of multidetector computed tomography findings and comparison with conventional radiography. Acta Radiol 2005; 46 (08) 866-874
• 26 Doornberg J, Lindenhovius A, Kloen P, van Dijk CN, Zurakowski D, Ring D. Two and three-dimensional computed tomography for the classification and management of distal humeral fractures. Evaluation of reliability and diagnostic accuracy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (08) 1795-1801
• 27 Humphrey CA, Dirschl DR, Ellis TJ. Interobserver reliability of a CT-based fracture classification system. J Orthop Trauma 2005; 19 (09) 616-622
• 28 Nakano T. Proposal for understanding trochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly and classification using 3DCT. Orthopaedics (Glendale Calif) 2006; 19 (05) 39-45
• 29 Mihir Thanvi, Gupta AK, Goyal N, Agarwal R, Sharma C. Reliability of commonly used classification systems of trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur and evaluation of CT in improving the interobserver agreement. Sch J App Med Sci. 2013; 1 (06) 706-709
• 30 Isida R, Bariatinsky V, Kern G, Dereudre G, Demondion X, Chantelot C. Prospective study of the reproducibility of X-rays and CT scans for assessing trochanteric fracture comminution in the elderly: a series of 110 cases. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015; 25 (07) 1165-1170
• 31 Shen J, Hu F, Zhang L, Tang P, Bi Z. Preoperative classification assessment reliability and influence on the length of intertrochanteric fracture operations. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (04) 681-687
• 32 Chapman CB, Herrera MF, Binenbaum G. , et al. Classification of intertrochanteric fractures with computed tomography: a study of intraobserver and interobserver variability and prognostic value. Am J Orthop 2003; 32 (09) 443-449
• 33 van Embden D, Scheurkogel MM, Schipper IB, Rhemrev SJ, Meylaerts SA. The value of CT compared to radiographs in the classification and treatment plan of trochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (08) 1091-1097
• 34 Jüni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet 2009; 374 (9697): 1221-1223
• 35 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
• 36 Ito R, Obara S, Atsumi T. Radiographic analysis of preoperative and postoperative 3dct images of trochanteric femoral fractures. Showa Univ J Med Sci. 2014; 26 (04) 271-282
• 37 Rotondi MA, Donner A. A confidence interval approach to sample size estimation for interobserver agreement studies with multiple raters and outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65 (07) 778-784