The intra- and interobserver reliability of the Tile AO, the Young and Burgess, and FFP classifications in pelvic trauma
- 131 Downloads
Several different systems of classification have been developed to understand the complexity of pelvic ring fractures, to facilitate communication between physicians and to support the selection of appropriate therapeutic measures. The purpose of this study was to measure the inter- and intraobserver reliability of Tile AO, Young and Burgess, and FFP classification in pelvic ring fractures. The Rommens classification system (FFP) is analyzed for the first time.
Materials and methods
Four reviewers (2 × senior pelvic trauma surgeon, 1 × resident, 1 × medical student) separately analyzed and classified 154 CT scans of patients with pelvic fracture. The Tile AO, the Young and Burgess, and the FFP classifications (subgroup with patients ≥ 60 years) were compared. Another blinded re-evaluation was carried out after 2 months to determine intraobserver reliability.
The overall interobserver agreement was fair for all classification systems (ICC: OTA 0.55, Young and Burgess 0.42, FFP 0.54). For specific categories, (e.g. type B or C fractures), there was a substantial agreement between the experienced surgeons (kappa: OTA 0.64, Young and Burgess 0.62, FFP 0.68). For inexperienced observers, there was a fair agreement in all systems (kappa: OTA 0.23, Young and Burgess 0.23, FFP 0.36).
All three classifications reach their maximum reliability with advanced expertise in the surgery of pelvic fractures. The novel FFP classification has proved to be at least equivalent when directly compared to the established systems. The FFP classification system showed substantial reliability in patients older than 60 years.
KeywordsPelvic trauma Classification Interobserver reliability FFP OTA Young and Burgees
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee (reference number: WF-009/18) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 9.Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J et al Fracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: orthopaedic trauma association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 21:S1-133Google Scholar
- 18.Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA (1981) Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic 86:127–137Google Scholar