Two and three-dimensional computed tomography for the classification and management of distal humeral fractures. Evaluation of reliability and diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND Complex fractures of the distal part of the humerus can be difficult to characterize on plain radiographs and two-dimensional computed tomography scans. We tested the hypothesis that three-dimensional reconstructions of computed tomography scans improve the reliability and accuracy of fracture characterization, classification, and treatment decisions. METHODS Five independent observers evaluated thirty consecutive intra-articular fractures of the distal part of the humerus for the presence of five fracture characteristics: a fracture line in the coronal plane; articular comminution; metaphyseal comminution; the presence of separate, entirely articular fragments; and impaction of the articular surface. Fractures were also classified according to the AO/ASIF Comprehensive Classification of Fractures and the classification system of Mehne and Matta. Two rounds of evaluation were performed and then compared. Initially, a combination of plain radiographs and two-dimensional computed tomography scans (2D) were evaluated, and then, two weeks later, a combination of radiographs, two-dimensional computed tomography scans, and three-dimensional reconstructions of computed tomography scans (3D) were assessed. RESULTS Three-dimensional computed tomography improved both the intraobserver and the interobserver reliability of the AO classification system and the Mehne and Matta classification system. Three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions also improved the intraobserver agreement for all fracture characteristics, from moderate (average kappa [kappa2D] = 0.554) to substantial agreement (kappa3D = 0.793). The addition of three-dimensional images had limited influence on the interobserver reliability and diagnostic characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for the recognition of specific fracture characteristics. Three-dimensional computed tomography images improved intraobserver agreement (kappa2D = 0.62 compared with kappa3D = 0.75) but not interobserver agreement (kappa2D = 0.24 compared with kappa3D = 0.28) for treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS Three-dimensional reconstructions improve the reliability, but not the accuracy, of fracture classification and characterization. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography was much more notable for intraobserver comparisons than for interobserver comparisons, suggesting that different observers see different things in the scans-most likely a reflection of the training, knowledge, and experience of the observer with regard to these relatively uncommon and complex injuries.

[1]  P D Sampson,et al.  Measuring interrater reliability among multiple raters: an example of methods for nominal data. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  D. Zurakowski,et al.  Clinical epidemiology and biostatistics: a primer for orthopaedic surgeons. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[3]  E. Fishman,et al.  Complex shoulder trauma: three-dimensional CT imaging. , 1988, Orthopedics.

[4]  F. Madsen,et al.  Garden's classification of femoral neck fractures. An assessment of inter-observer variation. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[5]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[6]  R. Gelberman,et al.  The use of routine wrist radiography in the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. , 1997, The Journal of hand surgery.

[7]  C. Steyers,et al.  Classification of distal radius fractures: an analysis of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. , 1996, The Journal of hand surgery.

[8]  L A Gilula,et al.  Radiographic evaluation of osseous displacement following intra-articular fractures of the distal radius: reliability of plain radiography versus computed tomography. , 1997, The Journal of hand surgery.

[9]  R M Patterson,et al.  Measurement of carpal bone geometry by computer analysis of three-dimensional CT images. , 1993, The Journal of hand surgery.

[10]  S. Jaglal,et al.  Subcapital hip fractures: the Garden classification should be replaced, not collapsed. , 2002, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[11]  R. M. Smith.  The classification of fractures. , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[12]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Consistency of AO fracture classification for the distal radius. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[13]  N Taub,et al.  An assessment of inter-observer agreement and accuracy when reporting plain radiographs. , 1997, Clinical radiology.

[14]  W. T. Ward,et al.  Severin Classification System for Evaluation of the Results of Operative Treatment of Congenital Dislocation of the Hip. A Study of Intraobserver and Interobserver Reliability* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  J. B. Kneeland,et al.  Impact of CT scan on treatment plan and fracture classification of tibial plateau fractures. , 1997, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[16]  F A Matsen,et al.  Complex fractures of the proximal humerus: role of CT in treatment. , 1987, Radiology.

[17]  J. R. Landis,et al.  An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. , 1977, Biometrics.

[18]  C. Goldfarb,et al.  Assessment of Articular Fragment Displacement in Acetabular Fractures: A Comparison of Computerized Tomography and Plain Radiographs , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[19]  J. Zuckerman,et al.  The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures. An assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  D. M. Dye,et al.  Musculoskeletal applications of three-dimensional surface reconstructions. , 1985, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[21]  D. Ring,et al.  Complex fractures of the distal humerus and their complications. , 1999, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[22]  T. Ganley,et al.  Role of Computed Tomography in the Classification and Management of Pediatric Pelvic Fractures , 2001, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[23]  L. Dai,et al.  Reliability of classification systems for intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur in experienced orthopaedic surgeons. , 2005, Injury.

[24]  I. Kelly,et al.  A three-dimensional classification for fractures of the proximal humerus. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[25]  C A Rockwood,et al.  Fracture classification systems: do they work and are they useful? , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[26]  E. Andersen,et al.  Evans' classification of trochanteric fractures: an assessment of the interobserver and intraobserver reliability. , 1990, Injury.

[27]  E. Parnell,et al.  Interobserver variation using the AO/ASIF classification of long bone fractures. , 1993, Injury.

[28]  D. Bozentka,et al.  Computed tomography scanning of intra-articular distal radius fractures: does it influence treatment? , 2001, The Journal of hand surgery.

[29]  S. Overgaard,et al.  Observer variation in the radiographic classification of ankle fractures. , 1991, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[30]  J. Jupiter,et al.  Multiplane Fracture of the Distal Humerus , 1993, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[31]  Horn Bd,et al.  Interobserver reliability in the Gustilo and Anderson classification of open fractures. , 1993 .

[32]  F A Matsen,et al.  The Neer classification of displaced proximal humeral fractures: spectrum of findings on plain radiographs and CT scans. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[33]  D. Ring,et al.  Fractures of the distal humerus. , 1992, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[34]  Gerald R. Williams,et al.  Evaluation of the Neer System of Classification of Proximal Humeral Fractures with Computerized Tomographic Scans and Plain Radiographs* , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[35]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[36]  R. Marti,et al.  Trans-Atlantic hospital agreement in reading first day radiographs of clinically suspected scaphoid fractures , 2002, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[37]  C. Gerber,et al.  The reproducibility of classification of fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.