Validity and Reliability of the Paprosky Acetabular Defect Classification

被引:52
作者
Yu, Raymond [1 ]
Hofstaetter, Jochen G. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Sullivan, Thomas [4 ]
Costi, Kerry [1 ]
Howie, Donald W. [1 ,2 ]
Solomon, Lucian B. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Adelaide Hosp, Dept Orthopaed & Trauma, Orthopaed & Trauma Serv, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
[2] Univ Adelaide, Ctr Orthopaed & Trauma Res, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[3] Med Univ Vienna, Vienna Gen Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Vienna, Austria
[4] Univ Adelaide, Discipline Publ Hlth, Adelaide, SA, Australia
关键词
BONE LOSS; REVISION; SYSTEMS; ARTHROPLASTY;
D O I
10.1007/s11999-013-2844-7
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The Paprosky acetabular defect classification is widely used but has not been appropriately validated. Reliability of the Paprosky system has not been evaluated in combination with standardized techniques of measurement and scoring. This study evaluated the reliability, teachability, and validity of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Preoperative radiographs from a random sample of 83 patients undergoing 85 acetabular revisions were classified by four observers, and their classifications were compared with quantitative intraoperative measurements. Teachability of the classification scheme was tested by dividing the four observers into two groups. The observers in Group 1 underwent three teaching sessions; those in Group 2 underwent one session and the influence of teaching on the accuracy of their classifications was ascertained. Radiographic evaluation showed statistically significant relationships with intraoperative measurements of anterior, medial, and superior acetabular defect sizes. Interobserver reliability improved substantially after teaching and did not improve without it. The weighted kappa coefficient went from 0.56 at Occasion 1 to 0.79 after three teaching sessions in Group 1 observers, and from 0.49 to 0.65 after one teaching session in Group 2 observers. The Paprosky system is valid and shows good reliability when combined with standardized definitions of radiographic landmarks and a structured analysis. Level II, diagnostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
引用
收藏
页码:2259 / 2265
页数:7
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, 2010, Annual report
[2]   Reliability of acetabular bone defect classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty [J].
Campbell, DG ;
Garbuz, DS ;
Masri, BA ;
Duncan, CP .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2001, 16 (01) :83-86
[3]  
DANTONIO JA, 1992, ORTHOP CLIN N AM, V23, P279
[4]   Classifying failed hip arthroplasty: Generalizability of reliability and validity [J].
Davis, AM ;
Schemitsch, EH ;
Gollish, JD ;
Saleh, KJ ;
Davey, R ;
Kreder, HJ ;
Mahomed, NN ;
Waddell, JP ;
Szalai, JP ;
Gross, AE .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2003, (415) :171-179
[5]  
Engh CA, 1991, INSTR COURSE LECT, V40, P189
[6]  
Garbuz Donald S, 2002, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, V10, P290
[7]   A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery [J].
Gozzard, C ;
Blom, A ;
Taylor, A ;
Smith, E ;
Learmonth, I .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2003, 18 (05) :638-642
[8]  
Gross A E, 1999, Instr Course Lect, V48, P57
[9]  
GUSTILO RB, 1988, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P111
[10]   Grading Acetabular Defects The Need for a Universal and Valid System [J].
Johanson, Norman A. ;
Driftmier, Kim R. ;
Cerynik, Douglas L. ;
Stehman, Charles C. .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2010, 25 (03) :425-431