The Reliability of Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation Classification Systems: A Comparison Between the Rockwood and Kraus Classifications

Background: The Rockwood system for the classification of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations has been associated with a lack of reliability. A novel system has been proposed (Kraus classification) that is based on dynamic posterior translation of these injuries. Purpose: To assess the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Rockwood and Kraus classification systems and also to examine the impact of surgeon experience on the assessments. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 45 patients with acute AC joint injuries who underwent a radiographic examination using standard bilateral AP and modified Alexander views. For interobserver reliability, 6 shoulder surgeons (expert group) and 6 orthopaedic residents (novice group) reviewed the radiographs to classify injuries according to the Rockwood and Kraus classifications; for each categorization, the participants chose between nonoperative management and surgical treatment. The evaluation was repeated 6 weeks later to determine intraobserver reliability. Kappa (κ) coefficients and their 95% CIs were used to compare interobserver and intraobserver reliability for each classification system according to assessor experience. Statistical differences were considered significant when the upper and lower boundaries of the 95% CI did not overlap. Results: The overall interobserver agreement for diagnosis (both novice and expert groups) was moderate (κ = 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51-0.54]) for the Rockwood classification and substantial (κ = 0.62 [95% CI, 0.53-0.65]) for the Kraus classification; however, no significant differences were observed between the κ values. The overall interobserver agreement for treatment selection was substantial when using both the Rockwood (κ = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.72-0.81]) and Kraus (κ = 0.77 [95% CI, 0.66-0.87]) classifications. The overall intraobserver agreement for diagnosis was substantial using both the Rockwood (κ = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.61-0.67]) and Kraus (κ = 0.73 [95% CI, 0.69-0.75]) classifications. There were no significant differences between the novice and expert groups on any of the evaluations. Conclusion: The Kraus system was slightly more reliable than the Rockwood system for classifying AC joint injuries both between assessor groups and overall. The level of surgeon experience had no impact on the evaluations.

[1]  C. Hong,et al.  A relook at the reliability of Rockwood classification for acromioclavicular joint injuries. , 2021, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[2]  K. Bak,et al.  High degree of consensus achieved regarding diagnosis and treatment of acromioclavicular joint instability among ESA-ESSKA members , 2020, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[3]  C. Thigpen,et al.  Systematic review of the treatment of acromioclavicular joint disruption comparing number of tunnels and graft type. , 2020, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[4]  M. Zumstein,et al.  Improved identification of unstable acromioclavicular joint injuries in a clinical population using the acromial center line to dorsal clavicle radiographic measurement. , 2020, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[5]  G. Aliberti,et al.  Horizontal Instability of the Acromioclavicular Joint: A Systematic Review , 2020, The American journal of sports medicine.

[6]  M. Scheibel,et al.  Dynamic instability of the acromioclavicular joint , 2018, Obere Extremität.

[7]  L. Funk,et al.  The Rockwood classification in acute acromioclavicular joint injury does not correlate with symptoms , 2018, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[8]  M. Provencher,et al.  Acromioclavicular and Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction for Acromioclavicular Joint Instability: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes. , 2018, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[9]  X. Qin,et al.  Comparison of surgical and conservative treatment of Rockwood type-III acromioclavicular dislocation , 2018, Medicine.

[10]  Jonathan D Ringenberg,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of radiographic classification of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. , 2017, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[11]  M. Maurer,et al.  New quantitative radiographic parameters for vertical and horizontal instability in acromioclavicular joint dislocations , 2017, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[12]  M. Scheibel,et al.  Quantification of dynamic posterior translation in modified bilateral Alexander views and correlation with clinical and radiological parameters in patients with acute acromioclavicular joint instability , 2017, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[13]  A. North Rockwood grade I and II acromioclavicular injuries: as benign as commonly believed? , 2016, Joints.

[14]  M. Balke,et al.  Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the Rockwood classification in acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations , 2016, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[15]  C. Cho,et al.  Reliability of the classification and treatment of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. , 2014, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[16]  C. Gerber,et al.  Standard Axillary Radiographs of the Shoulder May Mimic Posterior Subluxation of the Lateral End of the Clavicle , 2013, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[17]  K. Anderson,et al.  Intra– and Interdisciplinary Agreement in the Rating of Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations , 2013, The Physician and sportsmedicine.

[18]  M. Tauber Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts , 2013, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[19]  Olga Solovyova,et al.  Current concepts in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. , 2013, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[20]  Steven B Cohen,et al.  Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the radiographic diagnosis and treatment of acromioclavicular joint separations. , 2012, Orthopedics.

[21]  L. Funk,et al.  Reliability of the Traditional Classification Systems for Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries by Radiography , 2012 .

[22]  M. Scheibel,et al.  Arthroscopically Assisted Stabilization of Acute High-Grade Acromioclavicular Joint Separations , 2011, The American journal of sports medicine.

[23]  C. Hing,et al.  Operative versus non-operative management following Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular separation: a meta-analysis of the current evidence base , 2011, Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology.

[24]  A. Imhoff,et al.  Arthroscopically Assisted 2-Bundle Anatomical Reduction of Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Separations , 2010, The American journal of sports medicine.

[25]  Robert D Mehrberg,et al.  Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. , 2004, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[26]  A. Farron,et al.  Grade I and II acromioclavicular dislocations: results of conservative treatment. , 2003, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[27]  P. Evans,et al.  Acromioclavicular joint sprains: the post-injury recovery interval. , 2003, Injury.

[28]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Indexes and boundaries for "quantitative significance" in statistical decisions. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  H. Pavlov,et al.  Fractures and dislocations about the shoulder. , 1978, Seminars in roentgenology.

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

[31]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .