Higher reliability and validity of Baba classification with computerised tomography imaging and implant information for periprosthetic femoral fractures

International Orthopaedics

Volumn 39, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1695-1699

  Baba, Tomonori ^a   Homma, Yasuhiro ^a   Ochi, Hironori ^a   Kobayashi, Hideo ^a   Matsumoto, Mikio ^a   Sakamoto, Yuko ^b   Kuwahara, Hirotomo ^b   Maeda, Kouichi ^b   Kaneko, Kazuo ^a  

^a JUNTENDO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b JUNTENDO UNIVERSITY NERIMA HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Baba classification; Implant design; Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Vancouver classification

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BABA CLASSIFICATION; BONE RADIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISEASE ASSESSMENT; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; FEMUR FRACTURE; FEMUR PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL DEVICE COMPLICATION; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE ASSESSMENT; ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON; PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURE; PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY; VANCOUVER CLASSIFICATION; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CLASSIFICATION; FEMORAL FRACTURES; HIP PROSTHESIS; HIP REPLACEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; OSTEOSYNTHESIS; PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; RADIOGRAPHY; REOPERATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; FEMORAL FRACTURES; FRACTURE FIXATION, INTERNAL; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84940459846     PISSN: 03412695     EISSN: 14325195     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2674-1     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regnér H, Herberts P, Malchau H (2006) Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1215–1222
2. Neumann D, Thaler C, Dorn U (2012) Management of Vancouver B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures using a modular cementless stem without allografting. Int Orthop 36:1045–1050
3. Corten K, Vanrykel F, Bellemans J, Frederix PR, Simon JP, Broos PL (2009) An algorithm for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a well-fixed femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91:1424–1430
4. Moloney GB, Westrick ER, Siska PA, Tarkin IS (2014) Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures around a well-fixed hip arthroplasty implant: span the whole bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:9–14
5. Baba T, Kaneko K, Shitoto K, Futamura K, Maruyama Y (2013) Comparison of therapeutic outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fracture between treatments employing locking and conventional plates. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:437–441
6. Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304
7. Laurer HL, Wutzler S, Possner S, Geiger EV, El Saman A, Marzi I, Frank J (2011) Outcome after operative treatment of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:983–989
8. Baba T, Homma Y, Momomura R, Kobayashi H, Matsumoto M, Futamura K, Mogami A, Kanda A, Morohashi I, Kaneko K (2015) New classification focusing on implant designs useful for setting therapeutic strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop 39(1):1–5. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2476-x
9. Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159
10. Harris WH, McGann WA (1986) Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullary plug cement technique. Follow-up note with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:1064–1066
11. Goto E, Teranishi T, Tsuji M, Ando M (2014) Long-term clinical results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty using a matte satin-finished stem: a 30-year average follow-up study. J Orthop Sci 19(6):959–964. doi:10.1007/s00776-014-0619-y
12. Loudon JR, Older MW (1989) Subsidence of the femoral component related to long-term outcome of hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 71:624–628
13. Schmitz MW, Busch VJ, Gardeniers JW, Hendriks JC, Veth RP, Schreurs BW (2013) Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years and the outcome of subsequent revisions. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:37. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-37
14. Shah RP, Sheth NP, Gray C, Alosh H, Garino JP (2014) Periprosthetic fractures around loose femoral components. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22:482–490
15. Masri BA, Meek D, Duncan CP (2004) Periprostheic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop 42:80–95
16. Wood GC, Naudie DR, McAuley J, McCalden RW (2011) Locking compression plates for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed total hip and knee implants. J Arthroplasty 26:886–892
17. Haidukewych GJ, Langford J, Liporace FA (2013) Revision for periprosthetic fractures of the hip and knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:368–376
18. Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J Br 96:713–716
19. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2000) The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 15:59–62
20. Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS (2008) European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 90:1576–1579
21. Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N (2012) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1047–1050