This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BERNSTEIN, J.
Right arrow Articles by IANNOTTI, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BERNSTEIN, J.
Right arrow Articles by IANNOTTI, J. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 78:1371-5 (1996)
© 1996 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Evaluation of the Neer System of Classification of Proximal Humeral Fractures with Computerized Tomographic Scans and Plain Radiographs*

JOSEPH BERNSTEIN, M.D.{dagger}, LOUIS M. ADLER, M.D.{dagger}, JOHN E. BLANK, M.D.{dagger}, ROBERT M. DALSEY, M.D.{dagger}, GERALD R. WILLIAMS, M.D.{dagger} and JOSEPH P. IANNOTTI, M.D., PH.D.{dagger}, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Investigation performed at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia

The intraobserver reliability and interobserver reproducibility of the Neer classification system were assessed on the basis of the plain radiographs and computerized tomographic scans of twenty fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. To determine if the observers had difficulty agreeing only about the degree of displacement or angulation (but could determine which segments were fractured), a modified system (in which fracture lines were considered but displacement was not) also was assessed. Finally, the observers were asked to recommend a treatment for the fracture, and the reliability and reproducibility of that decision were measured. The radiographs and computerized tomographic scans were viewed on two occasions by four observers, including two residents in their fifth year of postgraduate study and two fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons. Kappa coefficients then were calculated. The mean kappa coefficient for intraobserver reliability was 0.64 when the fractures were assessed with radiographs alone, 0.72 when they were assessed with radiographs and computerized tomographic scans, 0.68 when they were classified according to the modified system in which displacement and angulation were not considered, and 0.84 for treatment recommendations; the mean kappa coefficients for interobserver reproducibility were 0.52, 0.50, 0.56, and 0.65, respectively. The interobserver reproducibility of the responses of the attending surgeons regarding diagnosis and treatment did not change when the fractures were classified with use of computerized tomographic scans in addition to radiographs or with use of the modified system in which displacement and angulation were not considered; the mean kappa coefficient was 0.64 for all such comparisons. Over-all, the addition of computerized tomographic scans was associated with a slight increase in intraobserver reliability but no increase in interobserver reproducibility. The classification of fractures of the shoulder remains difficult because even experts cannot uniformly agree about which fragments are fractured. Because of this underlying difficulty, optimum patient care might require the development of new imaging modalities and not necessarily new classification systems.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin Med ResHome page
J. M. M. Guix, J. S. Pedros, and A. C. Serrano
Updated Classification System for Proximal Humeral Fractures
Clin. Med. Res., June 1, 2009; 7(1-2): 32 - 44.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
J. Doornberg, A. Lindenhovius, P. Kloen, C. N. van Dijk, D. Zurakowski, and D. Ring
Two and Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography for the Classification and Management of Distal Humeral Fractures. Evaluation of Reliability and Diagnostic Accuracy
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2006; 88(8): 1795 - 1801.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
B. O. Parsons, S. J. Klepps, S. Miller, J. Bird, J. Gladstone, and E. Flatow
Reliability and Reproducibility of Radiographs of Greater Tuberosity Displacement. A Cadaveric Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 2005; 87(1): 58 - 65.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
R. J. Naranja Jr and J. P. Iannotti
Displaced Three- and Four-Part Proximal Humerus Fractures: Evaluation and Management
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., November 1, 2000; 8(6): 373 - 382.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
J. BERNSTEIN
Current Concepts Review - Decision Analysis
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 1997; 79(9): 1404 - 14.
[Full Text]