» Articles » PMID: 25371459

Field Testing the Unified Classification System for Peri-prosthetic Fractures of the Pelvis and Femur Around a Total Hip Replacement : an International Collaboration

Overview
Journal Bone Joint J
Date 2014 Nov 6
PMID 25371459
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Unified Classification System (UCS) emphasises the key principles in the assessment and management of peri-prosthetic fractures complicating partial or total joint replacement. We tested the inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS as applied to the pelvis and femur using 20 examples of peri-prosthetic fracture in 17 patients. Each subtype of the UCS was represented by at least one case. Specialist orthopaedic surgeons (experts) and orthopaedic residents (pre-experts) assessed reliability on two separate occasions. For the pelvis, the UCS showed inter-observer agreement of 0.837 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.798 to 0.876) for the experts and 0.728 (95% CI 0.689 to 0.767) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement for the experts was 0.861 (95% CI 0.760 to 0.963) and 0.803 (95% 0.688 to 0.918) for the pre-experts. For the femur, the UCS showed an inter-observer kappa value of 0.805 (95% CI 0.765 to 0.845) for the experts and a value of 0.732 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.773) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement was 0.920 (95% CI 0.867 to 0.973) for the experts, and 0.772 (95% CI 0.652 to 0.892) for the pre-experts. This corresponds to a substantial and 'almost perfect' inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur. We hope that unifying the terminology of these injuries will assist in their assessment, treatment and outcome.

Citing Articles

Periprosthetic femoral fractures in minimally-invasive anterolateral short stem versus transgluteal straight stem cementless total hip arthroplasty: What are the differences in the femoral and pelvic morphology?.

Luger M, Feldler S, Gahleitner M, Pisecky L, Gotterbarm T, Stadler C J Orthop Surg Res. 2025; 20(1):110.

PMID: 39881405 PMC: 11776236. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-05502-y.


Periprosthetic Ulna Fractures Following Aptis Distal Radioulnar Joint Arthroplasty: A Series of Four Cases.

Harmony T, Pina M, Ozyurekoglu T, Galvis E J Hand Surg Glob Online. 2024; 6(6):823-829.

PMID: 39703600 PMC: 11652308. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.06.012.


The History of Classification Systems for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Literature Review.

Yao Z, Fan S, Wei-Qiang Zhao , Huang J Orthop Surg. 2024; 16(8):1816-1831.

PMID: 38946014 PMC: 11293929. DOI: 10.1111/os.14149.


Characteristics and risk factors of UCS fracture subtypes in periprosthetic fractures around the hip.

Nasser A, Osman K, Chauhan G, Prakash R, Handford C, Nandra R Bone Jt Open. 2023; 4(9):659-667.

PMID: 37654129 PMC: 10471444. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.49.BJO-2023-0065.R1.


Managing periprosthetic fractures: perspectives on periprosthetic pelvic fractures.

de Ridder V, Pape H, Chana-Rodriguez F, Boudissa M, Glowalla C, Claudia G OTA Int. 2023; 6(1 Suppl):e266.

PMID: 37006450 PMC: 10064643. DOI: 10.1097/OI9.0000000000000266.