» Articles » PMID: 33463435

Reliability of Radiographic Union Scale in Tibial Fractures and Modified Radiographic Union Scale in Tibial Fractures Scores in the Evaluation of Pediatric Forearm Fracture Union

Overview
Date 2021 Jan 19
PMID 33463435
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the radiographic union scale in tibial (RUST) fractures and modified RUST (mRUST) fractures in pediatric forearm fractures treated with elastic stable intramedullary nail (ESIN) and to investigate the effect of the experience of surgeon, thresholds for union, and delayed union decisions.

Patients And Methods: In this retrospective study, radiographic images of 20 patients (10 males, 10 females; mean age 8.6±4.3; range, 4 to 11 years) with forearm fractures treated using ESIN between January 2013 and December 2018 were scored by 20 observers based on the RUST and mRUST scores. The observers scored the radiographs at immediate postoperative period, and at 4-, 8-, and 12-week follow-up. Intra- and interobserver agreement for each cortex, RUST, and mRUST were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Fleiss' kappa (κ) coefficient was used in the agreement between evaluators regarding union decision. Receiver operating curves were created to determine the thresholds for radiographic union and delayed union.

Results: Intra- and interobserver reliability of the mRUST score (ICC: 0.84 and 0.79) were slightly higher than that of the RUST score (ICC: 0.80 and 0.72). Pediatric orthopedic and trauma surgeons had slightly higher agreement than the residents and general orthopedists for the total mRUST and RUST scores of the eight-week radiographs. Mean RUST and mRUST scores at the union for all fractures were 10.2±3.4 and 13.0±2.1, respectively. Kappa value for union was moderate (0.74). The total mRUST score had a higher predictive value for union than the total RUST score (area under the curve: 0.986 vs. 0.889). A mRUST score of ≥12 and RUST score of ≥9 were considered as the predictors of union. In addition, a mRUST score of ≤7 and RUST score of <9 were considered as the predictors of delayed union.

Conclusion: A moderate agreement for both RUST and mRUST scores was found. However, the agreement for mRUST was found to be slightly higher. Healing and union of forearm fractures treated with ESIN can be reliably assessed using RUST and mRUST.

Citing Articles

Application of the Modified RUST Score in Tibial Bone Transport and Factors Associated with Docking Site Complications.

Kummer A, Nieuwoudt L, Marais L Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2024; 19(2):73-81.

PMID: 39359357 PMC: 11443615. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1621.


Analysis of the influence of circumference and displacement of the third fracture fragment on the healing of femoral shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing.

Yin Z, Yang S, Yu J, Chen S, Feng T, Huo Y Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):18173.

PMID: 39107419 PMC: 11303383. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-69137-5.


Improvements in Pediatric Bone Loss Reconstruction With the Induced Membrane Technique.

Stein A, Badina A, Pannier S, Saghbini E, Fitoussi F J Pediatr Orthop. 2024; 44(8):e748-e757.

PMID: 38826039 PMC: 11299901. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000002736.


Elastic stable intramedullary nail combined with Kirschner wire (E-K) technique for treating pediatric distal tibial diaphyseal metaphyseal junction (DTDMJ) fractures.

Liu Y, Ding S, Yang Y Front Pediatr. 2024; 12:1333652.

PMID: 38690522 PMC: 11058844. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2024.1333652.


An age-matched comparative study on intramedullary nailing and plate fixation of both-bone diaphyseal forearm fracture in adolescents.

Ishihara N, Tokutake K, Takegami Y, Asami Y, Kumagai H, Ota H Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023; 34(1):441-450.

PMID: 37573542 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03679-8.

References
1.
Kooistra B, Sprague S, Bhandari M, Schemitsch E . Outcomes assessment in fracture healing trials: a primer. J Orthop Trauma. 2010; 24 Suppl 1:S71-5. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181ca3fbd. View

2.
Atik O . What are the expectations of an editor from a scientific article?. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2020; 31(3):597-598. PMC: 7607939. DOI: 10.5606/ehc.2020.57896. View

3.
Whelan D, Bhandari M, Stephen D, Kreder H, McKee M, Zdero R . Development of the radiographic union score for tibial fractures for the assessment of tibial fracture healing after intramedullary fixation. J Trauma. 2009; 68(3):629-32. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a7c16d. View

4.
Koo T, Li M . A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155-63. PMC: 4913118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. View

5.
Prosser I, Lawson Z, Evans A, Harrison S, Morris S, Maguire S . A timetable for the radiologic features of fracture healing in young children. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198(5):1014-20. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6734. View