MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.foot.2010.06.002

Медицинская библиотека · Foot (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2010

Interobserver and intraobserver variations in tibial pilon fracture classification systems.

Ramappa Manjunath, Bajwa Ali, Singh Anjani, Mackenney Paul, Hui Anthony, Port Andrew

Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Tibial pilon injuries are a complex group of fractures, whose classification and radiological assessment has been under constant reform. Till date, there is no universally accepted classification system.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of Ruedi and Allgower, AO, and Topliss et al. classification systems for tibial pilon fractures, with CT scans.

METHOD: Forty-seven CT scans of tibial pilon fractures were evaluated independently by 5 orthopaedic surgeons. Fractures were classified according to Ruedi and Allgower, AO and Topliss et al. types. Assessment was done on two occasions, eight weeks apart.

RESULTS

The interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for Ruedi and Allgower, AO and Topliss et al. classifications showed only moderate agreement. The interobserver agreement was dependent on the familiarity and specificity of the classification system.

CONCLUSION

Currently used classification systems for tibial pilon fracture have moderate interobserver and intraobserver agreements, even with the help of CT scans. Therefore Tibial pilon fracture classification still remains largely undetermined.

Для цитирования: Ramappa Manjunath, Bajwa Ali, Singh Anjani, Mackenney Paul, Hui Anthony, Port Andrew. Interobserver and intraobserver variations in tibial pilon fracture classification systems.. Foot (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.foot.2010.06.002.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.