Translation between the Neer- and the AO/OTA-classification for proximal humeral fractures: do we need to be bilingual to interpret the scientific literature?

BMC Research Notes

Christian Bahrs¹  Bernd Rolauffs¹  Laurent Audigé⁴  Henrik Eckardt³  Stig Brorson² 

[1] Clinic for Traumatology and Reconstructive Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark;Schulthess Klinik, Zürich, Switzerland

关键词: OTA;    AO;    Neer;    Fracture classification;    Shoulder fractures;    Proximal humerus fractures;    Proximal humeral fractures;   

Others  :  1143409
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-6-69

 received in 2013-02-06, accepted in 2013-02-07,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The reporting and interpretation of data from clinical trials of proximal humeral fractures are hampered by the use of two partly incommensurable fracture classification systems: the Neer classification and the AO/OTA classification. It remains difficult to interpret and generalize results, to conduct prognostic studies, and to obtain consensus on treatment recommendations when concise definitions and a common ‘fracture language’ are lacking. Thus, we compared both classifications systems using primary data from large clinical studies to assess how thoroughly both systems conveyed clinically important classification information.

Methods

Classification data from each study were organized in a cross-table covering the 432 theoretically possible combinations between the 16 Neer categories and the 27 AO/OTA subgroups, and the plausibility of all observed combinations were assessed and discussed by the authors until consensus.

Results

We analyzed primary data from 2530 observations from seven studies providing primary data from both classification systems. Thirty-five percent (151 out of 432) of the combinations were considered ‘not plausible’ and thirty-four percent (149 out of 432) were considered ‘problematic’.

Conclusions

Clinically important information was lost within both classification systems. Most important, the varus/valgus distinction was not found within the Neer classification and a clear definition of displacement was lacking in the AO/OTA classification. We encourage surgeons and researches to report data from both classification systems for a more thorough description of the fracture patterns and to enable cross-checking of the coding. A suitable table for cross-checking of the coding is provided herein.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Brorson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bhandari M, Matthys G, McKee MD: Four part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2004, 18:126-127.
• [2]Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ: Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 Dec 12, 12:CD000434. CD000434.pub3
• [3]Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D, Faber KJ: Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008, 17:42-54.
• [4]Misra A, Kapur R, Maffulli N: Complex proximal humeral fractures in adults-a systematic review of management. Injury 2001, 32:363-372.
• [5]Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, Limb D, Giannoudis P: Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009, 18:837-844.
• [6]Tingart M, Bathis H, Bouillon B, Tiling T: [The displaced proximal humeral fracture: is there evidence for therapeutic concepts?]. Chirurg 2001, 72:1284-1291.
• [7]Brorson S, Olsen BS, Frich LH, Jensen SL, Johannsen HV, Sorensen AK, Hrobjartsson A: Effect of osteosynthesis, primary hemiarthroplasty, and non-surgical management for displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly: a multi-centre, randomised clinical trial. Trials 2009, 10:51. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Den HD, Van Lieshout EM, Tuinebreijer WE, Polinder S, Van Beeck EF, Breederveld RS, Bronkhorst MW, Eerenberg JP, Rhemrev S, Roerdink WH, Schraa G, Van der Vis HM, Van Thiel TP, Patka P, Nijs S, Schep NW: Primary hemiarthroplasty versus conservative treatment for comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly (ProCon): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010, 11:97. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Handoll H, Brealey S, Rangan A, Torgerson D, Dennis L, Armstrong A, Chuang LH, Cross B, Dumville J, Gardner S, Goodchild L, Hamilton S, Hewitt C, Madhok R, Maffulli N, Micklewright L, Wadsworth V, Wallace A, Williams J, Worthy G: Protocol for the ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009, 10:140. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Verbeek PA, SI VdA, Wendt KW, Diercks RL: Hemiarthroplasty versus angle- stable locking compression plate osteosynthesis in the treatment of three- and four- part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012, 13:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Neer CS: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970, 52:1077-1089.
• [12]Neer CS: Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002, 11:389-400.
• [13]Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J: The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Berlin: Springer; 1990.
• [14]Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, Prokuski L, Sirkin MS, Ziran B, Henley B, Audige L: Fracture and dislocation classification compendium -2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 2007, 21:S1-S133.
• [15]Bjorkenheim JM, Pajarinen J, Savolainen V: Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with a locking compression plate: a retrospective evaluation of 72 patients followed for a minimum of 1 year. Acta Orthop Scand 2004, 75:741-745.
• [16]Siwach R, Singh R, Rohilla RK, Kadian VS, Sangwan SS, Dhanda M: Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with locking proximal humeral plate (LPHP) in elderly patients with osteoporosis. J Orthop Traumatol 2008, 9:149-153.
• [17]Yang H, Li Z, Zhou F, Wang D, Zhong B: A prospective clinical study of proximal humerus fractures treated with a locking proximal humerus plate. J Orthop Trauma 2011, 25:11-17.
• [18]Bahrs C, Badke A, Rolauffs B, Weise K, Zipplies S, Dietz K, Eingartner C: Long-term results after non-plate head-preserving fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop 2010, 34:883-889.
• [19]Bahrs C, Rolauffs B, Stuby F, Dietz K, Weise K, Helwig P: Effect of proximal humeral fractures on the age-specific prevalence of rotator cuff tears. J Trauma 2010, 69:901-906.
• [20]Bartsch S, Echtermeyer V: Osteosyntheseverfahren bei dislozierten proximalen Humerusfrakturen. Trauma und Berufskrankheit 2003, 5:S1-S10.
• [21]Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, Heuwinkel R, Hafner C, Rillmann P, Kohut G, Ekelund A, Muller M, Audige L, Babst R: Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective multicenter analysis. J Orthop Trauma 2009, 23:163-172.
• [22]Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM: The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 2001, 72:365-371.
• [23]Dietrich M, Meier C, Lattmann T, Zingg U, Gruninger P, Platz A: [Complex fracture of the proximal humerus in the elderly: Locking plate osteosynthesis vs hemiarthroplasty]. Chirurg 2008, 79:231-240.
• [24]Gumina S, Giannicola G, Albino P, Passaretti D, Cinotti G, Postacchini F: Comparison between two classifications of humeral head fractures: Neer and AO-ASIF. Acta Orthop Belg 2011, 77:751-757.
• [25]Hirschmann MT, Quarz V, Audige L, Ludin D, Messmer P, Regazzoni P, Gross T: Internal fixation of unstable proximal humerus fractures with an anatomically preshaped interlocking plate: a clinical and radiologic evaluation. J Trauma 2007, 63:1314-1323.
• [26]Kettler M, Biberthaler P, Braunstein V, Zeiler C, Kroetz M, Mutschler W: Treatment of proximal humeral fractures with the PHILOS angular stable plate. Presentation of 225 cases of dislocated fractures. Unfallchirurg 2006, 109:1032-1040.
• [27]Pelegri C, Trojani C, Boileau P: Epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. In Shoulder concepts 2008. Edited by Boileau P, Walch G, Mole D, Favard L, Levigne C, Sirveaux F, Kempf JF. Montpellier: Sauramps Médical; 2008:13-19.
• [28]Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD: Surgical treatment of three and four- part proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91:1689-1697.
• [29]Court-Brown CM, Cattermole H, McQueen MM: Impacted valgus fractures (B1.1) of the proximal humerus. The results of non-operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002, 84:504-508.
• [30]Jakob RP, Miniaci A, Anson PS, Jaberg H, Osterwalder A, Ganz R: Four-part valgus impacted fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991, 73:295-298.
• [31]Robinson CM, Page RS: Severely impacted valgus proximal humeral fractures. Results of operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A:1647-1655.
• [32]Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD: Locked plating of 3- and 4-part Proximal humerus fractures in older patients: the effect of initial fracture pattern on outcome. J Orthop Trauma 2009, 23:113-119.
• [33]Audige L, Bhandari M, Kellam J: How reliable are reliability studies of fracture classifications? A systematic review of their methodologies. Acta Orthop Scand 2004, 75:184-194.
• [34]Brorson S, Hrobjartsson A: Training improves agreement among doctors using the Neer system for proximal humeral fractures in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:7-16.
• [35]Brorson S, Frich LH, Hrobjartsson A: The Neer classification for fractures of the proximal humerus: a narrative review. Minerva Ortop Traumatol 2009, 60:447-460.